file:///C|/...%20Documents/This%20Weeks%20Work/DIS%20349_Ozone%20Public%20Hearing/Ozone,%20meeting%20-%20Vol.%20I.txt[2/25/2010 9:23:09 AM]

0001

 1 NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARD

 2 PROPOSED RULE

 3 FEBRUARY 2010 PUBLIC HEARING 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 

 TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2010

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

0002

 1 P R O C E E D I N G S

 2 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Good morning, and thank you 

 3 for attending the Environmental Protection Agency's 

 4 public hearing on our proposal to set different National 

 5 Ambient Air Quality Standards or NAAQS for ground-level 

 6 ozone than those set in 2008. I recognize that many of 

 7 you have traveled quite a distance to be here, and I 

 8 appreciate your efforts. 

 9 My name is Rosalina Rodriguez, and I am the 

10 associate director for the Health and Environmental 

11 Impacts Division for EPA's Office of Air Quality 

12 Planning and Standards. I will be chairing today's 

13 hearing. Joining me on the panel are Lea Anderson of 

14 EPA's Office of General Counsel, and David McKee and 

15 Vicki Sandiford of EPA's Office or Air Quality Planning 

16 and Standards. 

17 We are here today to listen to your comments 

18 on EPA's proposal to set different primary and secondary 

19 ozone standards. This hearing is an important 

20 opportunity for the public to comment on EPA's proposed 

21 rule. The panel members may answer questions that seek 

22 to clarify what we have proposed. But the purpose of 

0003

 1 this hearing is to listen to your comments and not to 

 2 discuss or debate the proposal. 

 3 Before we move to the comment period, I would 

 4 like to briefly describe the proposed rule that is the 

 5 subject of today's hearing. The proposed rule was 
file:///C|/...%20Documents/This%20Weeks%20Work/DIS%20349_Ozone%20Public%20Hearing/Ozone,%20meeting%20-%20Vol.%20I.txt[2/25/2010 9:23:09 AM]

 6 published on the Federal Register on January 19, 2010. 

 7 Based on the review of the science on the 

 8 impacts of ozone and other photochemical oxidants, EPA 

 9 is proposing different primary and secondary ozone NAAQS 

10 than were set in 2008 to protect public health as well 

11 as vegetation and ecosystems. Specifically, EPA 

12 proposes that the level of the eight-hour primary 

13 standard, which was set in 2008 at 0.075 parts per 

14 million or ppm should instead be set at a level in the 

15 range of 0.060 to 0.070 ppm. 

16 In addition, EPA proposes that the secondary 

17 standard which was set in 2008 to be identical to the 

18 primary standard should instead be a new cumulative 

19 seasonal standard with a specific form called W126, and 

20 with a level within the range of 7 to 15 ppm hours. 

21 Administrator intends to sign a notice of final 

22 rule-making by August 31st of 2010. 

0004

 1 Now let me turn to the comment portion of 

 2 today's hearing. We will be preparing a written 

 3 transcript of today's hearing. The transcripts will be 

 4 available as part of the official record for each rule. 

 5 We are also accepting written comments for the proposed 

 6 rule until March 22nd, 2010. We have a handout 

 7 available at the registration area. The table outside 

 8 of those doors, with detailed information for submitting 

 9 written comments. At this time, I would like to outline 

10 how today's hearing will work. Call the scheduled 

11 speakers to the microphone. Please state your name and 

12 your affiliation. It will help our court reporter if 

13 you also spell your name. In order to be fair to 

14 everyone, we are asking that you limit your testimony to 

15 five minutes each and to remain at the microphone until 

16 both speakers have finished. After you finish your 

17 testimony, a panel member may ask clarifying questions. 

18 As I mentioned, we are transcribing today's 

19 hearing and each speaker's oral testimony will become 

20 part of the official record. Please be sure to give a 

21 copy of any written comments to our staff at the 

22 registration table outside. We will put the full text 

0005

 1 of your written comments into the docket for you. 

 2 We have a timekeeping system consisting of 

 3 green, yellow, and red lights. When you begin speaking, 

 4 the green light will come on. You will have five 

 5 minutes to speak. The yellow light will signal that 

 6 you have two minutes left to speak. We will ask that 

 7 you stop speaking when the red light comes on. We 

 8 intend to stay into the evening until everyone has had 

 9 an opportunity to comment. If you would like to testify 

10 but haven't yet registered to do so, please sign up at 

11 the registration table. For those who have already 

12 registered to speak, we have tried to accommodate your 

13 request for a specific time frames. We ask for your 
file:///C|/...%20Documents/This%20Weeks%20Work/DIS%20349_Ozone%20Public%20Hearing/Ozone,%20meeting%20-%20Vol.%20I.txt[2/25/2010 9:23:09 AM]

14 patience as we proceed through the list. We may need to 

15 make some minor adjustments as the day progresses. I 

16 would like to thank you all again for participating 

17 today. Let's get started. 

18 Let me call to the witness table Roger 

19 McClellan and David Baron. 

20 You may start. 

21 MR. MCCLELLAN: Good morning. I am Roger 

22 McClellan, R-o-g-e-r, M-c-C-l-e-l-l-a-n. I am a private 

0006

 1 consultant in Albuquerque, New Mexico. I serve as an 

 2 advisor to private and public organizations on air 

 3 quality issues. I have served on numerous Clean Air 

 4 Science Advisory Committee panels, including those 

 5 dealing in ozone, and have had the privilege of chairing 

 6 CASAC for four years; thus, I understand the process by 

 7 which the air quality standards are developed and 

 8 appreciate the unique role of CASAC in advising the 

 9 Administrator on the science that informs policy 

10 decisions on setting the standards. That process has 

11 two key phases. In the first phase, all of the relevant 

12 science is reviewed and integrated. In the second 

13 phase, the science is used to inform policy judgments 

14 and lead to succinct policy outcome -- the standard. 

15 Decisions on the specific level and form of 

16 the standard require that policy judgment be the health 

17 risks associated with a particular level and form are or 

18 are not acceptable. That is a policy decision. 

19 I am very familiar with the science that 

20 informed the proposed rule that led to the 2008 

21 standards. I understand Administrator Jackson will be 

22 relying on exactly that same information in making her 

0007

 1 policy decisions on a reconsideration standard. In my 

 2 opinion, the fact that the reconsideration proposal is 

 3 even being considered relates to confusion over the 

 4 unsolicited advice offered by CASAC after the 2008 

 5 standard was finalized. 

 6 CASAC merely restated its preference for a 

 7 specific policy outcome, a standard no higher than 0.070 

 8 ppm. While trumpeted as being scientific advice, this 

 9 was in reality a blending of science and policy. 

10 Administrator Jackson deferred to the CASAC policy 

11 preference when she proposed a reconsideration standard 

12 in the range of 0.070 to 0.60 ppm as though it was 

13 driven by science. Supreme Court Justice Breyer in 

14 Whitman vs. American Trucking Association emphasized 

15 considerable flexibility the EPA administrator has under 

16 the Clean Air Act in deciding what risks are acceptable 

17 in the world we live; and, thus, the basis for 

18 Administrator's substantial discretionary authority in 

19 setting the level of a standard. 

20 The policy judgment flexibility accorded by 

21 the Clean Air Act to the EPA Administrator, a senior 
file:///C|/...%20Documents/This%20Weeks%20Work/DIS%20349_Ozone%20Public%20Hearing/Ozone,%20meeting%20-%20Vol.%20I.txt[2/25/2010 9:23:09 AM]

22 official appointed by the president and confirmed by the 

0008

 1 senate, is understandable. The Clean Air Act certainly 

 2 does not extend that authority to CASAC. 

 3 In view of EPA's clear recognition that 

 4 CASAC's advice is a blend of science and policy, it is 

 5 difficult to understand why the EPA Administrator issued 

 6 a reconsideration proposal and stated that her decision 

 7 was being driven by the science. In my comments to EPA 

 8 Administrator Johnson in the 2007 proposed ozone rule, I 

 9 emphasized that scientific information in the record 

10 then was such that he had the latitude to make policy 

11 judgments on the standard, including a continuation of 

12 the present standard, which was then set as 0.08 ppm. 

13 My advice to Administrator Jackson is that she 

14 withdraw the reconsideration proposal since the premise 

15 in which it was advanced was flawed. In my opinion, 

16 EPA's resources would be better utilized in proceeding 

17 in an orderly manner with a next ozone review, which is 

18 already underway and scheduled for completion in 2013. 

19 If Administrator Jackson feels compelled to consider the 

20 reconsideration rule-making, I urge her to exercise the 

21 discretionary authority delegated to her and her alone 

22 under the Clean Air Act in deciding the level and form 

0009

 1 of the standard. She should not be swayed by policy 

 2 preference outcomes advocated by CASAC or others. 

 3 In making her policy judgments on the 

 4 standard, I urge her to consider the following points: 

 5 One, it's not necessary to add additional 

 6 margin safety at the end of the standard setting process 

 7 as suggested by CASAC. Those margin safety have already 

 8 been included in the process. 

 9 Second, background-levels of any of the ozone 

10 vary markedly across the United States and have been 

11 substantially underestimated by the policy relevant 

12 background approach introduced by the EPA staff into the 

13 process as though it were a scientific fact. 

14 Three, there is substantial heterogeneity in 

15 short-term mortality or an absence in mortality across 

16 the U.S. The vast authority of the cities, including 

17 many that will be a non-attainment under the proposed 

18 standard shall no statistically significant association 

19 between ozone and short-term mortality. That includes 

20 my hometown of Albuquerque, New Mexico. 

21 Four, health effects attributed to ozone in 

22 some of the epidemiological studies have not been 

0010

 1 considered the role. The clinical studies that have 

 2 been conducted do not support a standard below zero 

 3 0.08. 

 4 In closing, I wish to reiterate my opinion, 

 5 that the scientific information should be used in 

 6 informing the setting of the standard; although it's 
file:///C|/...%20Documents/This%20Weeks%20Work/DIS%20349_Ozone%20Public%20Hearing/Ozone,%20meeting%20-%20Vol.%20I.txt[2/25/2010 9:23:09 AM]

 7 inappropriate to argue, as CASAC and others have, that 

 8 the science compels a particular policy outcome of lower 

 9 standard. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to 

10 speak to you today. 

11 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you very much. 

12 I would like to remind the speakers to please 

13 adhere to the five-minute time limit since we have a 

14 packed agenda for this morning. Mr. Baron? 

15 MR. BARON: Good morning, my name is David 

16 Baron, I'm managing attorney of the Washington, D.C. 

17 Office of Earth Justice, a nonprofit environmental law 

18 firm that has represented the American Lung Association 

19 and other public health and environmental groups on 

20 Clean Air matters for almost 40 years. 

21 We strongly support EPA's proposal to 

22 reconsider the ozone standards. The Clean Air Act 

0011

 1 requires the standards to be strong enough to protect 

 2 our lungs and our environment. Unfortunately, the 

 3 prior administration's ozone standards failed that test. 

 4 They allow dangerous pollution levels. They can make 

 5 people sick, lead to premature deaths, and damage 

 6 forests and parks. EPA's own science advisors 

 7 unanimously said they were not strong enough. And just 

 8 last year, a Federal Court ruled that the Bush 

 9 Administration violated the law by disregarding its 

10 science advisors with regard to another standard for 

11 fine particle pollution. The science showing that the 

12 current ozone standard isn't strong enough is just as 

13 compelling as in this case. So EPA isn't just right to 

14 strengthen these standards as a matter of policy. It's 

15 required to do so by the Clean Air Act. This is not a 

16 situation where the law gives EPA the option of allowing 

17 a certain level of adverse effect to continue. We have 

18 here in the record evidence of actual adverse effects at 

19 and even below the 60 part per billion standard that is 

20 the bottom end of the scale. And EPA, under the law, 

21 does not have the option, notwithstanding Justice 

22 Breyer's concurring opinion, which is not the law of the 

0012

 1 land. EPA does not have the option of adopting a 

 2 standard that allows exposure of people to unsafe levels 

 3 of ozone. 

 4 Now, as far as how much to strengthen the 

 5 standards, the Nation's leading medical organizations, 

 6 including the American Medical Association, American 

 7 Academy of Pediatrics, The American Heart Association, 

 8 the Chest Physicians, the American College of 

 9 Preventative Medicine have all called for a health 

10 standard of 60 parts per billion. And as I indicated, 

11 that standard is fully warranted by the evidence. 

12 A 60 part per billion standard will save 

13 lives, save lungs, and lead to fewer days when it's 

14 unsafe for kids to play outside and unsafe for people 
file:///C|/...%20Documents/This%20Weeks%20Work/DIS%20349_Ozone%20Public%20Hearing/Ozone,%20meeting%20-%20Vol.%20I.txt[2/25/2010 9:23:09 AM]

15 with asthma and seniors to be outside. Now, ozone 

16 doesn't just injure our lungs; it damages our forests. 

17 Ozone induced damage to leaves is widespread. According 

18 to the National Park Service, ozone threatens more than 

19 200 of the national parks, including Yosemite, Yellow 

20 Stone, Great Smokey Mountain, Shenandoah, Grand Canyon, 

21 and Grand Teton. 

22 Because most of the damage is caused by 

0013

 1 cumulative exposure over the growing season, both CASAC 

 2 and the Park Service have called for a seasonal 

 3 cumulative standard to protect against ozone damage. 

 4 The prior administration refused to adopt such a 

 5 standard; in fact, the White House ordered EPA not to do 

 6 so. EPA is now proposing to correct that illegality by 

 7 proposing a separate secondary standard for ozone in the 

 8 7 to 15 part per million hour range cumulative to 

 9 protect forests and trees. 

10 The Park Service has called for the standard 

11 to be set at the lower end of that. And we agree that 

12 there is evidence in the record of damage to leaves and 

13 trees at that level, 7 parts per million, and even below 

14 that level. And the Clean Air Act requires EPA standard 

15 to protect against any adverse effects on welfare. 

16 We are concerned, however, by EPA's proposal 

17 to allow averaging of compliance with the secondary 

18 standard over three years rather than requiring 

19 compliance each and every year. To protect our forest 

20 and ecosystems, EPA must adopt a standard that is fully 

21 protective of those trees and forests, and that means 

22 requiring compliance each and every year. 

0014

 1 Thank you for the opportunity to speak. 

 2 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, gentlemen. Any 

 3 questions the panel, clarifying questions? 

 4 Let me call now Lorraine Gershman. 

 5 MS. GERSHMAN: Good morning, my name is 

 6 Lorraine Gershman. My statement is on behalf of the 

 7 American Chemistry Council. ACC represents the leading 

 8 companies engaged in the business of chemistry. We are 

 9 here today to question EPA's decision to re-propose the 

10 final 2008 ozone standard. 

11 Back in 2007, we stated that we believed that 

12 the then existing .08 ppm ozone standard will continue 

13 to provide ample protection of public health. In 

14 setting the 2008 ozone standard, then EPA Administrator 

15 Johnson noted that he believed that the advice provided 

16 by CASAC was a mixture of science and policy, and as 

17 such, he believed that the appropriate health protective 

18 standard was .075 ppm. ACC believes in appropriately 

19 peer-reviewed sound science and would support a new 

20 standard if the science demonstrated that it is 

21 justified. We continue to believe that the scientific 

22 evidence does not support the further lowering of the 
file:///C|/...%20Documents/This%20Weeks%20Work/DIS%20349_Ozone%20Public%20Hearing/Ozone,%20meeting%20-%20Vol.%20I.txt[2/25/2010 9:23:09 AM]

0015

 1 ozone standard at this time. Instead, EPA and states 

 2 should focus on fully implementing and attaining the 

 3 existing ozone standard before adopting any lower 

 4 standards such as those proposed on January 19th, 2010. 

 5 ACC members understand and value the importance of clean 

 6 air, and we support protecting public health and the 

 7 environment as demonstrated in the industry's 

 8 significant and continued progress in reducing our 

 9 emissions through our responsible care program. 

10 ACC members' companies produce a wide range of 

11 product, such as plastics and insulation products which 

12 increase energy efficiency for mobile sources, homes, 

13 and buildings which in turn results in lower greenhouse 

14 gas emissions and lower emissions of ozone precursors 

15 such as NOx. 

16 More broadly, the Nation's air quality has 

17 significantly improved and continues to improve with new 

18 voluntary and regulatory programs being implemented. 

19 According to EPA, total emissions of the six principal 

20 criteria air pollutants were reduced by 54 percent 

21 between 1980 and 2008. In place emission production 

22 programs will continue to reduce ozone through 2030. If 

0016

 1 the standard is revised, the lower end of the CASAC 

 2 recommended range, the number of counties designated as 

 3 being non-attainment will increase from the current cap 

 4 of 75 monitored counties to 650 monitored counties, 

 5 which is over 95 percent of all monitored counties. 

 6 These non-attainment counties would include both rural 

 7 and urban counties being designated as non-attainment 

 8 adversely impact communities, making it more difficult 

 9 to retract a retained industry and sustain economic 

10 growth vitality and jobs. 

11 For industry, being located in an 

12 non-attainment area results in increased operating 

13 costs, permitting delays and restrictions on expansions, 

14 which increases the time needed to bring improved 

15 products to market. Furthermore, facilities located in 

16 counties designated as in severe or extreme 

17 non-attainment will face significant section 185 for 

18 non-attainment circumstances beyond their control even 

19 though most of these facilities have already spent many 

20 millions of dollars to reduce emissions. Many of the 

21 states and counties that will be newly designated as 

22 non-attainment will face challenges in finding the 

0017

 1 resources necessary to comply with the additional 

 2 burdens of being in non-attainment. States are also 

 3 potentially facing significant new greenhouse gas 

 4 permitting requirements, which may redirect resources 

 5 that will then be unavailable for other environmental 

 6 issues, including NAAQS non-attainment planning and 

 7 permit management. 
file:///C|/...%20Documents/This%20Weeks%20Work/DIS%20349_Ozone%20Public%20Hearing/Ozone,%20meeting%20-%20Vol.%20I.txt[2/25/2010 9:23:09 AM]

 8 Adopting a new lower standard for ozone, which 

 9 EPA projects will be unattainable using all known 

10 controls will be detrimental to states as they struggle 

11 to implement and achieve the current standard. 

12 We are concerned with EPA's determination of 

13 weak science evidence that this lower ozone standard is 

14 prudent at this point in time. EPA has stopped 

15 implementing plans to achieve the 2008 standard, and the 

16 next ozone review cycle is slated to conclude in 2013. 

17 If, at the end of the next review cycle, new 

18 scientific studies clearly demonstrate that a lower 

19 standard is necessary, that would be the appropriate 

20 time to change the standard; not now. 

21 Our review of the scientific evidence results 

22 in alternate view of the science, leaving us to conclude 

0018

 1 that it does not support EPA's determination that the 

 2 existing .075 ppm standard needs to be made stricter to 

 3 protect public health. 

 4 There are numerous questions regarding the 

 5 state of the science, and in particular whether or not 

 6 there has been any significant developments in the past 

 7 ten years that would warrant further tightening of the 

 8 standard. Recent studies contain inconsistent or 

 9 conflicting data and consequently do not support a 

10 particular numeric change to the current standard. 

11 I also want to mention the increased energy 

12 cost and restriction on energy availability or lowering 

13 standards. Over the past few years, we have seen the 

14 impact of skyrocketing cost of energy in this country, 

15 both for automotive fuel as well as natural gas, which 

16 is increasingly used to heat our homes and fuel our 

17 electrical generating capacity. Revising the ozone 

18 standard as proposed would increase the demands on our 

19 Nation's already burdened natural gas supply. 

20 In conclusion, ACC does not believe that it is 

21 necessary to revise the ozone standard at this point in 

22 time. Instead, EPA in this stage should focus on 

0019

 1 implementing the current standard which will continue to 

 2 provide necessary health protection. EPA will have the 

 3 opportunity in the near future to determine if any 

 4 additional actions might be warranted. 

 5 ACC will also be submitting technical detailed 

 6 comments on this proposal. Thank you very much for your 

 7 time and consideration.

 8 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you. I want to remind 

 9 the speakers, again, please adhere to your five-minute 

10 period. 

11 Ms. Havell? 

12 MS. HERNIAL: Good morning, I am Mary Havell. 

13 And I am with the American Lung Association. Mary 

14 HERNIAL was scheduled to speak this morning, but, 

15 unfortunately, is in the hospital due to her COPD. Mary 
file:///C|/...%20Documents/This%20Weeks%20Work/DIS%20349_Ozone%20Public%20Hearing/Ozone,%20meeting%20-%20Vol.%20I.txt[2/25/2010 9:23:09 AM]

16 has asked me to read her testimony to you today: 

17 Good morning, my name is Mary M. HERNIAL. I 

18 live in Northern Virginia, and I am here today to tell 

19 my story and voice my support of strong air quality 

20 standards. I have lung disease. COPD, Chronic 

21 Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, and I live with oxygen 24 

22 hours a day. Is the medical term for emphysema or 

0020

 1 chronic bronchitis. For me and millions of others with 

 2 COPD, quality of the air literally means quality of 

 3 life. COPD limits the flow of air in and out of my 

 4 lungs. When that happens, less oxygen gets into the 

 5 body tissues and it becomes harder to get rid of carbon 

 6 dioxide. As the disease gets worse, it is harder to 

 7 remain active due to shortness of breath. At this time, 

 8 there is no cure for COPD. More than 10 million 

 9 Americans have COPD, and millions more have COPD 

10 symptoms but have not been diagnosed with the disease. 

11 COPD severely limits my daily activities, and 

12 being on oxygen makes simple tasks, like coming here 

13 today to speak with you, a challenge, but this issue is 

14 so important to me that I had to come here and tell my 

15 story. I hope my story will put a face on the millions 

16 who are affected the most by air pollution. 

17 I respectively request that EPA consider the 

18 impact the air pollution has on my health and the health 

19 of millions of others with lung problems when they set 

20 the smog standard. I urge you to set the most 

21 protective level for the cleanest air at 60 parts per 

22 billion. I used to garden a lot and work in my yard. I 

0021

 1 cannot do that anymore. I watch from inside my home. 

 2 When the weather is warm, the ozone smog and the poor 

 3 air quality in Loudoun and Fairfax County, actually all 

 4 of Northern Virginia, keep me from going out. The air 

 5 is so thick with pollution that even with oxygen, I have 

 6 difficulty breathing. I even miss a lot of my doctor 

 7 appointments because of the poor air quality. If I have 

 8 to travel the Beltway and the weather is warm or moist, 

 9 the pollutants from cars and diesel trucks literally 

10 take my breath away. I can't catch my breath, and it 

11 makes me ill. In 2008, I had over 12 hospital 

12 admissions for COPD exacerbations. What causes them? I 

13 attribute most of them to the bad air quality we live 

14 with in Northern Virginia. 

15 I am not even the only person in my family 

16 severely impacted by air pollution. My daughter has 

17 asthma and she has difficulty breathing in warmer 

18 weather because of the pollution in our community. For 

19 me, my daughter, and millions of others across the 

20 country please set the standard at the safest level so 

21 that air won't make us struggle to breathe. Thank you. 

22 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you. 

0022
file:///C|/...%20Documents/This%20Weeks%20Work/DIS%20349_Ozone%20Public%20Hearing/Ozone,%20meeting%20-%20Vol.%20I.txt[2/25/2010 9:23:09 AM]

 1 Any questions from the panel? 

 2 Let me call the next two speakers. They are 

 3 David Friedman and Leah Weiss. 

 4 MR. FRIEDMAN: Good morning, I'm David 

 5 Friedman. I'm director of Environmental Affairs for the 

 6 National Petrochemical and Refiners Associations. NPRA 

 7 is a national trade association. We are comprised of 

 8 more than 450 companies, including virtually all U.S. 

 9 refiners, the petrochemical manufacturers that supply 

10 consumers with a wide variety of products and services 

11 used daily in homes and businesses. 

12 The proposed NAAQS for ozone will have a great 

13 impact on our members. And I thank EPA for the 

14 opportunity to present our views on the current NAAQS 

15 ozone standard. 

16 Our members have significantly reinvested 

17 efforts to improve air quality in the U.S. over the past 

18 two decades. This has helped produce total emissions 

19 and the six principal air pollutants by 54 percent since 

20 1980. It contributed to a two-decade long drop in ozone 

21 levels across the country. The petrochemical and 

22 refining industries have invested billions of dollars to 

0023

 1 reduce emissions from their facilities. 

 2 The refining industry alone has spent nearly 

 3 50 billion -- and that's with a "B" -- to remove sulfur 

 4 from gasoline and diesel fuel in providing reformulated 

 5 gasoline that has contributed to national air quality. 

 6 The cleaner fuels brought to market and continuing in 

 7 the future will result in cleaner air for decades to 

 8 come as cleaner engines are put in place. This progress 

 9 will continue. We will see cars and trucks producing 

10 significantly lower emissions; in addition, emissions 

11 from power plants will be cut in half by 2015. 

12 The current ozone NAAQS standard is working 

13 well and will continue to protect public health in the 

14 future. There is simply no scientific justification for 

15 lowering the standard beyond the level EPA began 

16 implementing in 2004. Neither the 2008 review nor the 

17 most recent ozone studies justify lowering the standard 

18 based on the health effects of exposure. 

19 Given that conclusion, there is simply no 

20 basis for EPA to propose changing the ozone standard has 

21 promulgated by the Administrator in 2008. The science 

22 behind lowering the standard was an uncertain variable 

0024

 1 during the 2008 review, and the latest studies have not 

 2 changed that earlier conclusion. In fact, in the 

 3 current reconsideration, EPA indicates that it will only 

 4 rely on the previous record and not consider any new 

 5 evidence. 

 6 This creates a truly remarkable situation; 

 7 that is, the previous administrator considered the same 

 8 scientific evidence and rendered his judgment. Now 
file:///C|/...%20Documents/This%20Weeks%20Work/DIS%20349_Ozone%20Public%20Hearing/Ozone,%20meeting%20-%20Vol.%20I.txt[2/25/2010 9:23:09 AM]

 9 another administrator believes that a different 

10 judgement based on the same evidence is possible and 

11 supportable under the Clean Air Act. 

12 NPRA does not believe sufficient science 

13 exists to either support the 2008 standard or the extra 

14 statutory review EPA has initiated outside of the normal 

15 five-year NAAQS cycle. 

16 The EPA has an ambitious agenda; thus, it is 

17 important to note that agency's efforts to further 

18 reduce the ozone levels will likely conflict with EPA's 

19 increased emphasis on regulating greenhouse gasses. 

20 Efforts to reduce NOx and VOCs could result in 

21 significant energy penalties, whether by the 

22 installation of new control equipment or by requiring 

0025

 1 refineries to produce virtually sulfur-free gasoline. 

 2 Since refineries have moved to not only lowering ozone 

 3 standards for on-road and off-road vehicles, we also 

 4 have air toxic requirements and requirements for the 

 5 increasing utilization of renewable fuels. These 

 6 programs should be allowed to work before layering on 

 7 new requirements. 

 8 Promulgating a new ozone standard at this 

 9 point in time is like asking a person to reduce their 

10 daily caloric intake to 800 calories a day and then not 

11 understand why they don't have the energy to partake in 

12 extended strenuous physical activity. 

13 If there is no demonstrable benefit from this 

14 proposal, this could mean unnecessary energy increases, 

15 job loses, and reduced domestic energy development, and 

16 energy security. This will negatively affect consumers 

17 while they are still suffering from a severe recession 

18 in the very communities where we need to be creating 

19 jobs. These rules represent a stop sign on the road to 

20 economic recovery and will lead to further loss of 

21 American manufacturing jobs and increased reliance on 

22 imported gasoline and diesel fuel. 

0026

 1 For the reasons stated above, NPRA does not 

 2 support the proposed tightening of the ozone max. 

 3 Results from mobile and stationary source emission 

 4 reductions that are already in the books must be allowed 

 5 to come into effect before a new standard is considered. 

 6 As we said before, EPA should not move the goal post in 

 7 the middle of the game. 

 8 New non-attainment designations will hurt both 

 9 large and small businesses and prevent expansion and 

10 growth in many urban, suburban, and rural communities. 

11 Hurting economies without a clear scientific basis for 

12 selecting a different standard makes little sense, 

13 particularly in this current time of economic 

14 uncertainty. 

15 Again, we are grateful for this opportunity to 

16 present our views, and we will be providing written 
file:///C|/...%20Documents/This%20Weeks%20Work/DIS%20349_Ozone%20Public%20Hearing/Ozone,%20meeting%20-%20Vol.%20I.txt[2/25/2010 9:23:09 AM]

17 comments further outlining our positions in March. 

18 MS. WEISS: Good morning, my name is Leah 

19 Weiss. I am senior policy advisor with the Northeast 

20 States for Coordinated Air Use Management. NESCAUM is 

21 an association of eight air quality agencies in the 

22 northeast, which includes the six New England states, 

0027

 1 New Jersey and New York. I am speaking on behalf of 

 2 NESCAUM's member states on EPA's proposal to revise the 

 3 primary and secondary. 

 4 We are greatly heartened to see that EPA has, 

 5 upon reconsideration, proposed revisions to primary and 

 6 secondary NAAQS that are consistent with the scientific 

 7 body of evidence and in keeping with the recommendations 

 8 of CASAC and EPA's own professional staff. 

 9 Ground-level ozone is a respiratory irritant 

10 that adversely affects both people with respiratory 

11 disease and healthy children and adults. As we stated 

12 in the last ozone NAAQS review, a robust and more 

13 sophisticated body of health studies clearly shows that 

14 the current primary ozone NAAQS does not adequately 

15 protect public health from the adverse health effects of 

16 ozone. In light of this evidence, the EPA 

17 Administrator, EPA Staff, and the CASAC have all 

18 recognized the need for a more stringent primary ozone 

19 standard. 

20 When EPA revised the primary ozone standard in 

21 the 1990s, the health effects information was less 

22 clear. CASAC members were divided in the 

0028

 1 recommendations they offered EPA regarding the 

 2 appropriate level for ozone. This was no longer that 

 3 case by 2006 when EPA revisited the ozone primary NAAQS. 

 4 With the advent of the wealth of newer health studies, 

 5 CASAC's membership made a unanimous recommendation to 

 6 EPA to revise the primary ozone standard within the 

 7 range of .060 to .070 parts per million range. 

 8 Unfortunately, this recommendation was not followed in 

 9 the EPA's final 2008 rule. 

10 Now, as in our comments on the 2008 ozone 

11 NAAQS revision, NESCAUM strongly believes that EPA 

12 should follow the advice of its independent scientific 

13 advisory committee when that committee speaks with such 

14 a clear and united voice. In keeping with this, 

15 NESCAUM continues to support a revised primary ozone 

16 standard within the CASAC recommended range of .060 to 

17 .070 parts per million. 

18 We also continue to hold firm with regard to 

19 the secondary ozone NAAQS and the protection of welfare 

20 values. The CASAC strongly endorsed the 2007 EPA Staff 

21 Paper recommendation that protection of crops and 

22 ecosystems requires a secondary ozone NAAQS that is 

0029

 1 substantially different than the primary ozone standard 
file:///C|/...%20Documents/This%20Weeks%20Work/DIS%20349_Ozone%20Public%20Hearing/Ozone,%20meeting%20-%20Vol.%20I.txt[2/25/2010 9:23:09 AM]

 2 in averaging time level and form, end quote. 

 3 In light of EPA's Staff and CASAC's 

 4 recommendation and extensive body of historical and 

 5 recent monitoring and research data upon which they base 

 6 their recommendation, equating the ozone secondary with 

 7 eight-hour primary NAAQS, as done in the 2008 final 

 8 rule, was not supportable by the weight of scientific 

 9 evidence. 

10 Secondary NAAQS based on cumulative, seasonal 

11 ozone exposure is more relevant to protecting 

12 economically or ecologically important crops, forests, 

13 and other sensitive vegetation as compared to the 

14 short-term eight-hour averaged concentration form in the 

15 primary ozone NAAQS. 

16 For the secondary NAAQS, NESCAUM continues to 

17 support the concentrated weighted form proposed by the 

18 EPA and supported by the CASAC referred to as W126. 

19 Based on reserved ozone damage of forests in the NESCAUM 

20 region at current ozone levels, we recommend secondary 

21 NAAQS in the W126 form at the lower end of the proposed 

22 range of 7 to 15 ppm hours. This will provide better 

0030

 1 protection for crops and forests in our region. 

 2 Furthermore, it is consistent with CASAC 

 3 recommendation that, quote, if multi-air averaging is 

 4 employed to increase the stability of the secondary 

 5 standard, the level of the standard should be revised 

 6 downward to assure that the desired threshold is not 

 7 exceeded in individual years, end quote. EPA has 

 8 proposed using a W126 averaged over three years for the 

 9 form of the secondary standard. 

10 We strongly agree with the Agency's 

11 reconsideration and rejection of the flawed rationale 

12 employed in the 2008 and previous ozone NAAQS 

13 revisions -- that many of the benefit of the secondary 

14 would be achieved if the primary NAAQS were obtained. 

15 As EPA recognizes, this logic is flawed in at 

16 least two ways. First, ozone damage to vegetation can 

17 persist in the areas that retain a primary NAAQS. And 

18 second, the relationship between short-term eight-hour 

19 peak concentrations and monitored seasonal aggregations 

20 is not constant but varies over time and space. 

21 NESCAUM will be submitting more detailed 

22 written comment into the docket. We thank you for your 

0031

 1 attention to our oral testimony today. 

 2 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you. 

 3 Any questions from the panel? Let me call 

 4 Howard Feldman and Arthur Cerullo. 

 5 MR. FELDMAN: Good morning, I am Howard 

 6 Feldman, director of Regulatory and Scientific Affairs 

 7 at API. American Petroleum Institute is the primary 

 8 association for the First. The oil and gas industries 

 9 is helping make the air cleaner today and in the future. 
file:///C|/...%20Documents/This%20Weeks%20Work/DIS%20349_Ozone%20Public%20Hearing/Ozone,%20meeting%20-%20Vol.%20I.txt[2/25/2010 9:23:09 AM]

10 Second, there is actually far more debate on the science 

11 than EPA has represented. And third, the proposed new 

12 standards may impose real costs on real people without 

13 commensurate benefit. 

14 First, thanks to the implementation of the 

15 Clean Air Act, our air quality has been demonstrably 

16 improved. Since 1990, the oil and gas industry has 

17 invested in more than 175 billion -- that's billion with 

18 a "B" -- towards improving the environmental performance 

19 of its products, facilities, and operations. 

20 Approximately 57 percent of the industry's' $14 billion 

21 environmental expenditures in 2007 targeted air 

22 pollution abatement, either meeting or surpassing the 

0032

 1 requirements of the Clean Air Act. We've put in place 

 2 cleaner gasoline and cleaner diesel, and these fuels 

 3 with the cleaner equipment on which they are used lead 

 4 to cleaner air. We've also worked with local and state 

 5 governments to reduce the emissions from our facilities. 

 6 EPA's trends data -- my figure one attached on 

 7 our oral testimony -- showed that the emissions from six 

 8 criteria pollutants dropped by 60 percent from 1970 to 

 9 2008 while vehicle models traveled went up 163 percent. 

10 This is an impressive accomplishment matched by progress 

11 in other areas. 

12 According to EPA's Toxic's Release Inventory, 

13 since 1998, releases and transfers from toxic 

14 chemicals from the petroleum industry have decreased by 

15 68 percent. Equally important, regulations and 

16 standards already in place will assure further progress. 

17 Refineries across the nation implemented new processes 

18 designed to dramatically reduce the presence of sulfur 

19 in gasoline and diesel. Amplifying this progress, cars 

20 and trucks will be 77 to 95 percent cleaner over the 

21 next decade than those produced previously. 

22 The annual emissions reduction from the use of 

0033

 1 Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel with cleaner technology engines 

 2 will be equivalent to removing pollution from 90 percent 

 3 of today's trucks and buses by 2030. 

 4 Moving on to my second point, there is 

 5 actually far more debate on the science than EPA has 

 6 represented as previously acknowledged by Administrator 

 7 Johnson. As the former chairman of CASAC, Dr. Roger 

 8 McClellan, indicated earlier in his testimony, 

 9 Administrator Johnson was justified in the policy 

10 decisions he reached regarding the setting of the NAAQS. 

11 And EPA has recently acknowledged that the newer studies 

12 on ozone, quote, Do not materially change any of the 

13 broad scientific conclusions regarding health effects of 

14 exposure. Therefore, this action lacks scientific 

15 justification. API's written comments will include 

16 detailed comments on the science, including those 

17 studies that some are alleging provide new support for a 
file:///C|/...%20Documents/This%20Weeks%20Work/DIS%20349_Ozone%20Public%20Hearing/Ozone,%20meeting%20-%20Vol.%20I.txt[2/25/2010 9:23:09 AM]

18 tighter standard. 

19 Moving on to my third and last point. A more 

20 stringent ozone standard will burden the states with a 

21 new and more difficult target before they complete the 

22 work and implement attainment plans for the current 

0034

 1 standard. To cite a football analogy -- we've already 

 2 heard it once; it's the Super Bowl week, we'll hear it 

 3 again -- EPA is effectively proposing to move the 

 4 goalposts in the middle of the game. Many local 

 5 communities will be saddled with new costs that will 

 6 hurt both large and small businesses and bring expansion 

 7 and growth. Even EPA estimates that the cost of this 

 8 proposal could be as high as $90 billion, and the 

 9 standards would still not be achieved everywhere. 

10 So fuels that cost more to manufacture will be 

11 required in more areas. Jobs will be unnecessarily 

12 lost. And the EPA is proposing a range that is very 

13 close to setting the standard at peak background-levels. 

14 So it will be incredibly difficult for the states to 

15 attain these proposed standards. 

16 In summary this proposal lacks scientific 

17 justification. There is absolutely no basis for EPA to 

18 propose changing the ozone standard by the EPA 

19 administration in 2008. To do so is an obvious 

20 politicization of the Air Quality standards setting 

21 process that could mean unnecessary energy cost 

22 increases, job losses, and less domestic oil and gas 

0035

 1 natural development, natural gas development, and energy 

 2 security. 

 3 This would impact citizens while they are 

 4 still suffering from a severe recession in the very 

 5 communities where we need to be creating new jobs. 

 6 Therefore, without a clear certain scientific for 

 7 selecting a different numeric standard, the ozone 

 8 standard should not be changed now. We urge the 

 9 Administrator not to pursue this proposal. 

10 MR. CERULLO: Good morning, my name is Arthur 

11 Cerullo, and I am speaker of the Nationwide Assembly of 

12 the American Lung Association. I have been a volunteer 

13 for the Lung Association for more than 20 years and have 

14 served as the president of the American Lung Association 

15 of Maine. Thank you for the opportunity to share the 

16 position of the American Lung Association on EPA's 

17 proposed National Air Quality Standards for ozone. I am 

18 from Maine, and if you have ever visited our beautiful 

19 state, you know why we treasure the outdoors, from the 

20 majestic mountains, crystal lakes, and bracing coastal 

21 waters. Our summers are short, so we hate to miss a 

22 single chance to be outdoors, but one thing we are often 

0036

 1 missing is a clear blue sky because of smog. 

 2 Acadia National Park, one of the most 
file:///C|/...%20Documents/This%20Weeks%20Work/DIS%20349_Ozone%20Public%20Hearing/Ozone,%20meeting%20-%20Vol.%20I.txt[2/25/2010 9:23:09 AM]

 3 beautiful parks in the country, is plagued by poor air 

 4 quality much of the summer. Too often, smog for both 

 5 local and distant sources obscures the view of the first 

 6 light of day in the United States at the top of Cadillac 

 7 Mountain. This is why the mission of the American Lung 

 8 Association means so much to me and why we are committed 

 9 to the fight for healthy air. Unhealthy, smog-filled 

10 air robs us of the ability to enjoy the outdoors for 

11 fear of wheezing, an asthma attack, or even death. 

12 Key to our fight for healthy air has been our 

13 work to support stronger National Ambient Air Quality 

14 Standards. We recognize the critical role that National 

15 Air Quality Standards play. These standards quite 

16 literally drive the work we do as the nation to clean up 

17 air pollution. 

18 We are pleased that the EPA is reconsidering 

19 the recommendations of the expert scientists, public 

20 health and medical societies, including your own Clean 

21 Air Scientific Advisory Committee. 

22 The American Lung Association calls on EPA to 

0037

 1 adopt a primary national ambient air quality standard 

 2 for ozone 60 parts per billion averaged over eight 

 3 hours. The Clean Air Act requires EPA to set a standard 

 4 that protects public health with an adequate margin of 

 5 safety. What does that mean really? To protect public 

 6 health with a margin of safety. 

 7 First, we believe that it means that EPA 

 8 should follow the advice of the 23 distinguished 

 9 independent air pollution experts who form the EPA's 

10 Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee. They gave 

11 unprecedented unanimous support for standard within the 

12 range EPA is considering. 

13 These expert scientists reviewed more than 

14 1700 studies. They saw clear evidence of the harm that 

15 ozone can do to children, old people with lung diseases 

16 like asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. 

17 They looked at studies that track ozone pollution and 

18 scores of cities across the nation and found that ozone 

19 levels need to be much, much lower. Other studies found 

20 with people with mild asthma can be harmed if they 

21 breathe ozones at concentrations much, much lower than 

22 the standard. 

0038

 1 After EPA selected the inadequate standard in 

 2 2008, the members of the expert team of scientists wrote 

 3 a letter urging that the next time the standard was 

 4 reviewed, Administrator should finally follow their 

 5 advice. This is that opportunity. Second, it means 

 6 that EPA should select the most protective level within 

 7 that range. EPA has evidence from a clinical study that 

 8 found that ozone harmed the lungs of healthy young 

 9 adults who breathe ozone at levels within the range 

10 they're considering. That's the gold standard of 
file:///C|/...%20Documents/This%20Weeks%20Work/DIS%20349_Ozone%20Public%20Hearing/Ozone,%20meeting%20-%20Vol.%20I.txt[2/25/2010 9:23:09 AM]

11 testing. Researchers cannot test children or people 

12 with serious asthma in the lab. The risk of harm to 

13 them is just too great. That's why the Clean Air Act 

14 requires that EPA include a margin of safety in the 

15 standard to provide an extra layer of protection for 

16 those who need it the most. That's why the American 

17 Lung Association and groups like the American Medical 

18 Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the 

19 American Public Health Association urge you to provide 

20 that protection and set the standard at 60 parts per 

21 billion. 

22 Ozone air pollution poses health risks for our 

0039

 1 children, teenagers, seniors and people with asthma and 

 2 other lung diseases. For those people, smog-polluted 

 3 air means more breathing problems, aggravated asthma, 

 4 fear filled trips to the emergency room, and even 

 5 admission to the hospital. 

 6 For children growing up, breathing high levels 

 7 of ozone routinely in the summer may mean that their 

 8 lungs could not develop their full function, a risk that 

 9 can threaten their health for the rest of their lives. 

10 For some, ozone threatens premature death. 

11 The science is clear. The law is clear. EPA 

12 has a legal requirement to set the standard where it 

13 protects the health of the public with a margin of 

14 safety. This is particularly important for people more 

15 vulnerable to the health effects of ozone. Thankfully, 

16 I am not one of them. 

17 I'm an avid cyclist. As a matter of fact, I 

18 first became involved with the Lung Association through 

19 the trip across Maine. Every year I ride for those who 

20 can't breathe as easily as I can, especially the kids 

21 with asthma who can't ride their own bikes or even go 

22 outside on high ozone days for fear of landing in the 

0040

 1 hospital gasping for breath. Thank you for your 

 2 attention. 

 3 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, gentlemen. 

 4 Any questions from the panel? 

 5 I would like to call to the table Ivy Main and 

 6 Deborah Shprentz. 

 7 MS. MAIN: Good morning, thank you for the 

 8 opportunity to speak in support of the EPA's proposed. 

 9 National Air Quality for ozone. Clean Air Act requires 

10 the EPA to set air quality standards based on the need 

11 to protect human health with an adequate margin for 

12 safety. The current zone limit of 75 parts per billion 

13 fails that test. I applaud the EPA for now proposing a 

14 stricter standard. 

15 I am a resident of McLean, Virginia, here in 

16 D.C.'s inner suburbs, and the mother of two children, 

17 both now in college. The Washington area has suffered 

18 from bouts of unhealthy ozone levels during most of the 
file:///C|/...%20Documents/This%20Weeks%20Work/DIS%20349_Ozone%20Public%20Hearing/Ozone,%20meeting%20-%20Vol.%20I.txt[2/25/2010 9:23:09 AM]

19 time my children were growing up. Both of them were 

20 avid soccer players from the time they were in 

21 kindergarten. If any of you have children who played on 

22 sports teams, you know that this is deadly serious 

0041

 1 competition. In elementary school, no coach calls off 

 2 practice for elevated ozone levels. You pretty much 

 3 have to have a haze so thick you could not see the goal 

 4 before anyone would give up the competitive advantage of 

 5 getting in your practice time. 

 6 For the parents, the coaches, the leagues, and 

 7 the schools may all be partly to blame for the soaring 

 8 rate of asthma among our children, but if we want to 

 9 reduce asthma rates, we won't succeed by suggesting the 

10 kids stay indoors on bad air days. We have to stop the 

11 bad air days. This means lowering the acceptable limit 

12 to a truly protective level and then enforcing it. This 

13 seems too expensive only if no one you know has asthma. 

14 This matters to me on a personal level. Both 

15 of my children developed lung problems. My older 

16 daughter developed asthma at about age eight and still 

17 has occasional attacks even in college. My younger 

18 daughter developed a similar lung ailment that required 

19 her to see a pediatric paleontologist for over a year 

20 and take medications for much longer. 

21 I can't prove a cause and effect relationship 

22 with ozone. I can only tell you that neither their 

0042

 1 father, nor I, nor any grandparents or aunts and uncles 

 2 have ever had asthma. My daughters are just two data 

 3 points among the soaring asthma rates that affect 

 4 America's children. They are also two data points for 

 5 the case of preventing asthma by lowering ozone levels 

 6 is cheaper than treating the disease. The outlay for 

 7 treating my kids ran thousands of dollars. By contrast, 

 8 my hybrid car with its very low emissions cost only 

 9 slightly more than an equivalent non-hybrid car. 

10 If every parent in this room could prevent 

11 their own children from getting asthma by choosing a 

12 hybrid or taking public transportation or biking to 

13 work, every one of us would do it. If we could prevent 

14 them from getting sick by buying electricity from wind 

15 turbines instead of cold generated power, we would do 

16 it, but of course it doesn't work that way. Protecting 

17 our Nation's children is not an individual choice. It 

18 is a collective imperative. 

19 So I call on the EPA to set and enforce air 

20 quality standards that will protect our children, yours 

21 and mine, and everyone else's. And don't forget that 

22 adequate margin of safety. Thank you. 

0043

 1 MS. SHPRENTZ: Good morning, I'm Deborah 

 2 Shprentz, and I follow the review of the NAAQS for the 

 3 American Lung Association. 
file:///C|/...%20Documents/This%20Weeks%20Work/DIS%20349_Ozone%20Public%20Hearing/Ozone,%20meeting%20-%20Vol.%20I.txt[2/25/2010 9:23:09 AM]

 4 I'm very pleased to be here today to testify 

 5 in support of science driven air quality standards. As 

 6 we understand it, the reconsideration of the ozone 

 7 standards will be based on the record established in the 

 8 2008 rule making. And there is abundant scientific 

 9 evidence in that record pointing to the need to set an 

10 eight-hour standard at 60 parts per billion to protect 

11 public health with an adequate margin of safety. 

12 However, recognizing that science marches forward, I 

13 want to highlight a few of the most significant 

14 scientific developments that have occurred in the last 

15 few years. We know that these studies will be assessed 

16 and considered as part of the subsequent review of the 

17 ozone standards, a process that is already underway, but 

18 given that they provide strong support for the EPA 

19 proposal to set the eight-hour standard at 60 to 70 

20 parts per billion as recommended by the Agency's Clean 

21 Air scientific Advisory Committee and the Children's 

22 Health Protection Advisory Committee, they should be 

0044

 1 mentioned today. Now, studies for human volunteers are 

 2 exposed to known concentrations of ozone in an 

 3 experimental chamber under gold standard in air 

 4 pollution research. In 2008, Bell, et al, reanalysis of 

 5 two clinical studies of ozone conducted by Adams 

 6 reported that compared to breathing clean air, 60 parts 

 7 per billion ozone causes a small statistically 

 8 significant decline in mean lung function responses in 

 9 healthy young adults. A 2009 study funded by the 

10 American Petroleum Institute investigated the effect of 

11 6.6 hours inhalation of ozone concentration from 60 to 

12 87 parts per billion in 31 healthy young adults. This 

13 study reported statistically significant effects on 

14 respiratory symptoms in pulmonary function in healthy 

15 individuals in 70 parts per billion. 

16 The study also found decrements of lung 

17 function at 60 parts per billion of about the same 

18 magnitude reported in the earlier Adams studies. 16 

19 percent of the subjects tested have lung function 

20 decrements greater than 10 percent at 60 parts per 

21 billion, an adverse health effect. 

22 Now, the community health studies find effects 

0045

 1 that are more serious than even lower concentrations. 

 2 The study just done in 2010 looked at the association 

 3 between air pollution and asthma, and the San Joaquin 

 4 Valley. And this study found that ozone and pm were 

 5 associated with frequent asthma symptoms and asthma 

 6 related emergency department visits and hospitalization. 

 7 The median annual average ozone concentration in this 

 8 region was 30.3 parts per billion. 

 9 In 2006 case crossover analysis in 36 U.S. 

10 cities confirmed that exposure to ozone at pm is 

11 associated with hospital admissions for pneumonia and 
file:///C|/...%20Documents/This%20Weeks%20Work/DIS%20349_Ozone%20Public%20Hearing/Ozone,%20meeting%20-%20Vol.%20I.txt[2/25/2010 9:23:09 AM]

12 COPD, especially during the summer months. Eight-hour 

13 mean concentrations of ozone during the warm season 

14 ranged from 15 to 63 parts per billion. At levels below 

15 the current standard of 75, ozone not only makes people 

16 sick, it can also shorten lives. 2008 consensus report 

17 by a Committee of the National Academy of Sciences 

18 confirm that short-term exposure to ozone smog is likely 

19 to increase the risk of premature death. 

20 And my testimony cites three recent studies 

21 that have a re-enforced the National Academy of Sciences 

22 conclusion. In one large multi-city study, the 

0046

 1 eight-hour average concentrations range from 15 to 62 

 2 parts per billion. In another major multi-city study in 

 3 the United States, the daily ozone concentrations range 

 4 from 21 to 49 parts per billion. 

 5 In summary, there is ample new evidence 

 6 published in the last five years to support the 

 7 conclusion that EPA should set the eight-hour ozone 

 8 standard at a level of 60 parts per billion. Thank 

 9 you. 

10 MR. NOBIL: My name is James Nobil. I am a 

11 private citizen. First of all, I'd like to thank the 

12 panel for allowing me to speak today. I'd also like to 

13 make a brief comment, that this is the first panel that 

14 I have testified in front of. One of the interesting 

15 things to me is I thought this was a public hearing. In 

16 any event, I'm here to urge the EPA and the panel to 

17 implement the strongest protective measures that science 

18 suggests are needed to protect public health. My own 

19 personal experience with this issue and the reason why 

20 I'm here today is because I live in Alexandria, 

21 Virginia, adjacent to the Potomac River Generating 

22 Plant, which is a coal fire plant built, I believe, 

0047

 1 about 50 years ago. I've seen the impact of the ability 

 2 of that plant to operate under current regulations on my 

 3 fellow residents. There is approximately 300 units in 

 4 the condominium building that I live in. Not good. I 

 5 must say that I was foolish enough when I bought into 

 6 that condominium ten years ago to think that we had a 

 7 Clean Air Act in this country that would protect -- that 

 8 was adequate enough to protect the citizens and those of 

 9 us that live here. I did not think that living next to 

10 power plants would be a health hazard. 

11 Unfortunately, I'm not an expert. I have to 

12 rely on those that are experts, but I can tell you from 

13 first-hand experience of my residents -- luckily I have 

14 not been personally affected myself -- that the current 

15 emission standards are not adequate enough. And that's 

16 really all I have to say. Thank you very much. 

17 Thank you, sir. 

18 Mr. O'Donnell? 

19 MR. O'DONNELL: Good morning, my name is Frank 
file:///C|/...%20Documents/This%20Weeks%20Work/DIS%20349_Ozone%20Public%20Hearing/Ozone,%20meeting%20-%20Vol.%20I.txt[2/25/2010 9:23:09 AM]

20 O'Donnell. I am president of Clean Air Watch, a 

21 national non-profit organization. Unlike some of the 

22 speakers here this morning, I am here to praise EPA, not 

0048

 1 to try to bury them in some oil drum. 

 2 And to continue the conversation that we heard 

 3 earlier about the Super Bowl, I think what we have here 

 4 is analogous to a replay that found that, in fact, the 

 5 last time out the goalposts were put in the wrong part 

 6 of the field. So we are glad that you are putting it 

 7 in the right place or at least proposing to put it in 

 8 the right place. What literally is at stake here is the 

 9 quality of the air Americans will breathe for many years 

10 into the future. The National Air Quality Standards are 

11 truly the heart and lungs of the Clean Air Act. They 

12 are the driving force for all the clean-up programs 

13 under the Clean Air Act. And the ozone commonly known 

14 as smog is the Nation's most widespread air pollutant. 

15 Rubbing sandpaper on an open wound. That is a very 

16 graphic description that I think is very accurate here. 

17 And I think we all need to keep in mind that we know, 

18 without a medical doubt, that the current standards for 

19 ozone are too weak to protect people's health. That's 

20 the unanimous opinion of EPA's independent science 

21 advisory board. That's the opinion of EPA's career 

22 scientists. And that appears to be the judgment of 

0049

 1 EPA's administrator as well. 

 2 So we do appreciate and commend you for 

 3 re-considering what was a scientifically flawed decision 

 4 made by the prior administration. The question now is 

 5 where do we go from here? 

 6 You have proposed a range of standards that 

 7 seem to be within the range proposed by EPA's science 

 8 advisors. Joining with our friends for the American 

 9 Lung Association and other members of the public health 

10 and medical community, we urge you to set a final 

11 primary standard at the low end of that range. 

12 Let's try to do better than the bare minimum. 

13 Why would you want to end up with a standard that is 

14 weaker than the one recommended by doctors and the rest 

15 of the medical community. It's been a decade since the 

16 standards were last updated. We know much more about 

17 ozone than we did then. Can make us sick. It can send 

18 us to the hospital and it can shorten our lives. 

19 So we urge you to listen to the science, 

20 follow the recommendations of the American Lung 

21 Association, the American Thoracic Society, EPA's 

22 Children Health Advisory Panel, the American Medical 

0050

 1 Association, and the rest of the medical community. We 

 2 urge you to reject the views of special interest 

 3 polluters and follow the medical science. Make sure 

 4 that kids with asthma can take a deep breath without 
file:///C|/...%20Documents/This%20Weeks%20Work/DIS%20349_Ozone%20Public%20Hearing/Ozone,%20meeting%20-%20Vol.%20I.txt[2/25/2010 9:23:09 AM]

 5 fear. 

 6 On the secondary standards, I won't go into 

 7 detail, but I would like to associate our comments with 

 8 those of my friend, David Baron, who spoke earlier. I 

 9 think they were very appropriate. 

10 Let me just sum up to say that the public 

11 should have the right to know if the air they are 

12 breathing can harm them. This is an opportunity to make 

13 sure that the government is doing something good. 

14 Thank you very much for your time. 

15 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, gentlemen. 

16 Any questions from the panel? 

17 I'd like to call Susan Stillman and Brian 

18 Urbaszeweski. 

19 MS. STILLMAN: Thank you for the opportunity 

20 to allow me to speak to you all today. My name is Susan 

21 Stillman. I live in Vienna, Virginia. I'm here to 

22 encourage you to strongly control the emissions of 

0051

 1 gasses that combine the form of ozone. 

 2 As I noted earlier, I live in northern 

 3 Virginia. We have many days in the summer when the area 

 4 is not within the current guidelines for ozones. People 

 5 are told that if they are in a risk group they should 

 6 not go outside; it's dangerous to breathe the air. 

 7 We live in the richest country in the world, 

 8 and we can't control our pollution so that people can go 

 9 outside in the summertime. It's unbelievable. This is 

10 particularly disconcerting for me as I am an avid bike 

11 rider. I ride my bike whenever it's feasible and I 

12 drive my car as little as possible. Some days I think I 

13 should not be riding my bike as biking is an aerobic 

14 activity. This means that I take in a lot of air. I 

15 think it might be better for my health if I drove 

16 instead, but then I would be part of the problem, not 

17 part of the solution. 

18 I have four nieces and one nephew who live in 

19 Fairfax and Loudoun County. In neither of these 

20 families there are a history of asthma. All of these 

21 children have asthma. Four of them are active athletes. 

22 I can't prove to you that there is a link from the ozone 

0052

 1 to their asthma, but I don't think their health should 

 2 be put at risk and that their parents should have to 

 3 spend additional money for their health care for the 

 4 convenience of others. 

 5 The emissions that create ozone are caused by 

 6 automobiles and by coal burning power plants. When you 

 7 enforce the rules that are dictated by good science, 

 8 things will change in transportation and the generation 

 9 of electricity. If the real cost of these emissions is 

10 born by the polluters, things will change. Mass transit 

11 will become more usable. Cars will become cleaner and 

12 will convert to energy like solar and wind energy, which 
file:///C|/...%20Documents/This%20Weeks%20Work/DIS%20349_Ozone%20Public%20Hearing/Ozone,%20meeting%20-%20Vol.%20I.txt[2/25/2010 9:23:09 AM]

13 will create more jobs; clean good jobs. 

14 These are not things that I can change. I 

15 need the government to do that for me. I strongly agree 

16 with the EPA's decision to follow the advice of the EPA 

17 scientist and the Clean Air Scientific Advisory 

18 Committee to revise the ozone standard to a level that 

19 is more protective of public health than the current 75 

20 parts per billion by volume. 

21 I believe that lowering the standard to 60 

22 ppbv for an eight-hour average is consistent with this 

0053

 1 Committee's recommendations and findings while still 

 2 leaving a good margin of safety as required by law. I 

 3 also support the secondary standards of 7 to ppbv being 

 4 proposed for protection of the environment. 

 5 It's the government's job to protect the 

 6 citizens. I commend you in your effort to reduce the 

 7 ozone that affects all of our lives and all of our 

 8 health. 

 9 MR. Urbaszeweski: Thank you for the 

10 opportunity to testify on the Agency's proposal for 

11 revising the ozone standard. My name is Brian 

12 Urbaszeweski. I'm director of environmental health 

13 programs for Respiratory Health Association Metropolitan 

14 Chicago. I'd like to give you greetings from Chicago 

15 where currently today's AQI is predicted to be orange. 

16 Respiratory Health Association of Metropolitan 

17 Chicago has been the leading lung health advocate since 

18 1906. We provide educational services on the topic of 

19 lung health, support medical research, and advocate for 

20 cleaner air in order to preserve lung health and to 

21 improve the lives in people who live with lung disease. 

22 While air quality has improved in recent 

0054

 1 years, the signs show that the entire Chicago area still 

 2 faces air quality challenges. As CASAC's 

 3 recommendation, EPA's monitoring data and the proposal 

 4 under consideration today indicate the nearly 10 million 

 5 people of greater Chicago are not being served by the 

 6 current ozone standard. The current standard certainly 

 7 is not protecting people with asthma and other reactive 

 8 airway diseases. 

 9 For more than ten years, published research 

10 has convincingly demonstrated that there are significant 

11 negative health outcomes when people are exposed to 

12 ozone levels that are below the level of the current 

13 federal standard. Those with lung disease often fare 

14 worst when exposed to ozone. Ozone increased the number 

15 of asthma attacks, respiratory hospital admissions, and 

16 emergency room visits. Some research suggests that 

17 ozone may also increase children's risk of even 

18 developing asthma. Research published prior to 2007 

19 found that children with asthma, newborns, the elderly, 

20 and workers breathing ozone at levels well below the 
file:///C|/...%20Documents/This%20Weeks%20Work/DIS%20349_Ozone%20Public%20Hearing/Ozone,%20meeting%20-%20Vol.%20I.txt[2/25/2010 9:23:09 AM]

21 current health standards still suffer adverse health 

22 effects. Over 400,000 people in Cook County alone have 

0055

 1 asthma. Over a quarter of these are children. Asthma 

 2 is the most chronic diease among children. Some 

 3 population and some groups in our area, such as people 

 4 of Puerto Rican ancestry, have asthma rates that are 

 5 amazingly high, as many as a third of all school-aged 

 6 children in certain Chicago neighborhoods. The asthma 

 7 hospitalization rate in Chicago is nearly double the 

 8 national average. 

 9 Air quality standards should be set at a level 

10 that will protect everyone's health, period. The 

11 standard must be significantly lowered in order to 

12 protect sensitive groups with a reasonable margin of 

13 safety as required by the plain language of the Clean 

14 Air Act. 

15 We urge the EPA to listen to their own 

16 advisors such as the Agency's Children's Health 

17 Protection Advisory Committee, as well as independent 

18 organizations such as the AMA, American Academy of 

19 Pediatrics, the American College of Chest Physicians, 

20 American Public Health Association, my organization and 

21 many others who all endorse a primary standard of .060 

22 parts per million. 

0056

 1 People also have the right to know that when 

 2 the air they are breathing can put their health at risk, 

 3 and EPA should not be hiding this information from them. 

 4 People with asthma and parents of children with asthma, 

 5 follow Air Pollution Action Day announcements and EPA's 

 6 AIRNOW system alerts. It gives people realtime 

 7 knowledge of high ozone levels that can be used to 

 8 modify or avoid outdoor activities that might trigger an 

 9 attack. It also allows parents of children with asthma 

10 to be extra vigilant about children carrying rescue 

11 medication. Having an adequate ozone standard will 

12 ensure that the useful warnings are more accurate in 

13 their portrayal of risk. 

14 The president's own daughter and the 

15 Administrator's own son have asthma. They share that 

16 experience with millions of other parents around the 

17 country. Since the Staff Paper states, quote, The 

18 selection of any particular approach to providing an 

19 adequate margin of safety is a policy choice left 

20 specifically to the Administrator's judgement, end 

21 quote, we trust Ms. Jackson will make the right decision 

22 on setting the standard at 0.060 parts per million. 

0057

 1 Last time the ozone's hearing was held in 

 2 Chicago. This time it's not. There are many Chicago 

 3 area residents extremely interested in what EPA is 

 4 doing. In addition to my own organization's comments, I 

 5 would also like to submit letters from doctors, nurses, 
file:///C|/...%20Documents/This%20Weeks%20Work/DIS%20349_Ozone%20Public%20Hearing/Ozone,%20meeting%20-%20Vol.%20I.txt[2/25/2010 9:23:09 AM]

 6 respiratory therapists, pastors, elected officials, and 

 7 business and community leaders who likely support and 

 8 urge the Administrator to set the ozone standards at 

 9 this level. 

10 Thank you very much. And I do have 11 letters 

11 that I would like to present. 

12 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you. 

13 Does the panel have any questions? 

14 I'd like to call Steve Ferber and Ryan Pleune 

15 to the table, please. 

16 MR. FERBER: My name is Steve Ferber, I'm a 

17 doctorate of physical chemistry, but I'm here as a 

18 private citizen. I was inspired to come through some 

19 information relayed by the Union of Concerned Scientists 

20 for which I support. Member. My background is -- 

21 well, I'm a native of Arlington County here. And, 

22 perhaps, one of the reasons I went into science was 

0058

 1 because of the hypocrisy and the sort of corporate 

 2 prostitution that I experienced growing up under people 

 3 like the Nixon, Reagan regimes. 

 4 I would say, in fact, I left graduate school 

 5 in part because of the election or perhaps theft of the 

 6 1980 election through the withholding of the hostage 

 7 release. And I just bring this up because one of the 

 8 long-term problems, I think, of this nation has been 

 9 that there is such an influence of the corporate mindset 

10 that has perverted what should be a scientific basis for 

11 our environmental laws. And I find that after the 

12 Reagan and Bush Administrations, I think that, if 

13 anything, these standards are probably too high, even 

14 the low ends. I would not be surprised if we find in 

15 the future that we should have acted much sooner and 

16 much more stringently. 

17 As often happens in science, you find that 

18 when the short-term corporate mindset is involved, you 

19 know, the next quote is profit margin outweighs the 

20 truth all too often. I have experienced asthma and 

21 bronchitis in myself, even though I have been an avid 

22 swimmer, biker, and runner, and I, for obviously 

0059

 1 personal reasons, would appreciate seeing this standard 

 2 strengthened. And I also just think that in keeping up 

 3 with what should be our responsibilities -- as a 

 4 scientist, I tend to think, of course, more in terms of 

 5 our species and the world, you know, reality. I mean 

 6 pollution is not something that stops at borders. I 

 7 think that the more responsible actions of our West 

 8 European, Japanese, and Canadian neighbors should be an 

 9 example to us that we should try to keep up with the 

10 real first world rather than just being concerned about 

11 how much Wall Street gets out of the policies that their 

12 minions tend to lobby for. I, in fact, plan to post doc 

13 in West Europe or Canada. And part of the determination 
file:///C|/...%20Documents/This%20Weeks%20Work/DIS%20349_Ozone%20Public%20Hearing/Ozone,%20meeting%20-%20Vol.%20I.txt[2/25/2010 9:23:09 AM]

14 whether I return to this country will be determined by 

15 how much we resurrect democracy, which I believe was 

16 highly damaged by the lack of double impeachment in 1987 

17 when Iran contra's policies were struck under the 

18 national security blanket. 

19 But I feel a responsibility to America and to 

20 our general existence as a species should be based 

21 therefore in science, not just in whether the American 

22 Chamber of Commerce supports what we are doing or how 

0060

 1 much my particular political party lobby receives. 

 2 I would recommend in closing that we should 

 3 remember that one of our first scientists, Benjamin 

 4 Franklin, pointed out that an ounce of prevention is 

 5 worth a pound of cure. And that is something I think 

 6 should be held highly in regards to these long-term 

 7 extremely important policy decisions. 

 8 So I would put my weight with the people of 

 9 the American Medical Association and the American 

10 Medical Lung Association and try to undo a lot of the 

11 damage that has been brought over these last 30 years. 

12 MR. PLEUNE: Good morning, my name is Ryan 

13 Pleune. I am here to urgently support the EPA 

14 recommendations to regulate smog at 60 parts per 

15 billion. Here as a bicycle commuter, a teacher, a 

16 natural space advocate. I currently work as a Maryland 

17 Green School coordinator with over 240 schools in the 

18 State of Maryland. I am here to speak on behalf of my 

19 own real experiences. I am not being paid to be here, 

20 nor does my job depend on the decisions that are made. 

21 I'm actually giving up employment opportunity costs to 

22 speak here. 

0061

 1 I became a teacher through the outward bound 

 2 tradition and the education philosophy of Kurt Hahn. 

 3 After teaching high school science for four years, I now 

 4 work as a teacher and student advocate to achieve social 

 5 and environmental justice through the development of the 

 6 ecological literacy. In honor of Kurt Hahn and his 

 7 educational philosophy, I like to begin all my 

 8 workshops, teachings with a quote. This is by Ferenc 

 9 Mate': There is more to sailing than ropes and winches, 

10 cleats, and bulging sails. There are far away places 

11 and the ever changing light and the silence and the 

12 great peace at the bottom of your soul. 

13 As a bike commuter, I can keep myself safe 

14 from vehicles and other physical risks, but I can't keep 

15 myself safe from the air that I breathe. I was told to 

16 make it memorable. So these are my props, and it can go 

17 on the transcript however. 

18 To those of you who have spoken against the 

19 most stringent recommendations from the EPA to regulate 

20 ozone and smog at 60 parts per billion or regulate or to 

21 regulate at 7 parts per million hours, I see you; I hear 
file:///C|/...%20Documents/This%20Weeks%20Work/DIS%20349_Ozone%20Public%20Hearing/Ozone,%20meeting%20-%20Vol.%20I.txt[2/25/2010 9:23:09 AM]

22 you; and I feel confused, scared, and sick to my 

0062

 1 stomach. You opposing regulations to keep our 

 2 community safe and healthy under the guise of scientific 

 3 debate and economic recovery. Industrial growth at all 

 4 costs has proven itself unsustainable. I will submit 

 5 detailed written comments later this month, and I invite 

 6 you to join me in the remaining few minutes in the 

 7 contemplate of silence. This silence is as powerful and 

 8 as important as the private industries' prepared 

 9 speeches. I will finish when the light turns red. 

10 Through your own breath consider what does it 

11 mean when school institute indoor recess because of poor 

12 air quality. Silence. Thank you for your time. 

13 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you. 

14 Any questions from the panel? 

15 I'd like to call Julia Clones and Vince Mow.

16 MS. CLONES: My name is Julia Clones. I am 

17 here as a private citizen, though I am a member of a 

18 number of grassroots initiatives. 

19 I am an economist working on development. But 

20 what is relevant here back in the '70s, as an economist 

21 to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, I was doing 

22 impact assessment of the proposed regulations. So I've 

0063

 1 got very good experience on the difficulties of really 

 2 estimating the benefits through the society from 

 3 proposed regulations. So I decided to take the floor 

 4 in order to highlight three points: 

 5 Number one, since we all agree there is still 

 6 an ozone problem, I would strongly support the proposed 

 7 regulation by the EPA. I would leave the details to the 

 8 other experts. 

 9 Second, I urge EPA to disregard the arguments 

10 by special interests or industry or whatever you want to 

11 call it, that argue or debate the cost benefit analysis. 

12 That's false. The reason being that the calculated 

13 cost from the proposed regulations in dollar terms 

14 clear, peculiarly process because they count what it 

15 cost to adjust to these new standards, but they 

16 disregard the difficulty of calculating benefits. 

17 I heard some of the speakers say that the cost 

18 of proposed regulation as an energy is going to go up. 

19 That is an estimate in dollars that they have their own 

20 way of calculating, but I can understand statistically 

21 there is a way of doing it, but they try to compare it 

22 with the benefits of proposed regulation which they know 

0064

 1 they cannot really estimate in dollar terms. 

 2 Usually when we're talking about the effect of 

 3 hazards, even man-made hazards to the public, often 

 4 there is a guesstimate, and most important, they do not 

 5 include the so-called social costs. They don't include 

 6 the cost to the health care system. They don't include 
file:///C|/...%20Documents/This%20Weeks%20Work/DIS%20349_Ozone%20Public%20Hearing/Ozone,%20meeting%20-%20Vol.%20I.txt[2/25/2010 9:23:09 AM]

 7 the cost to the large expectations and so on. My point 

 8 is I'm not an expert on ozone, but I know quite well 

 9 about guesstimates, all of the effects of various 

10 hazards to public health. 

11 So the whole argument about high cost of the 

12 so-called proposed compared to the demonstrative 

13 benefits, it's a false argument. Disregard it because 

14 it's like comparing onions with garlic or oranges or 

15 anything else. The two things do not go together. I 

16 used it as an economist at CPSC because we had by law to 

17 present estimates with all of the providers and 

18 (inaudible), that this is only a guideline. This is an 

19 analytical perception of what the cost is from the 

20 various hazards, but it's not a statistic to be put 

21 there to compare with industry statistics about their 

22 cost. 

0065

 1 The third point I want to raise, I know it's 

 2 outside the competence of EPA, it has to do with the 

 3 idea that the public is part of the problem. The public 

 4 has to change their behavior as consumers and as users 

 5 of automobiles and so on in order to help decrease the 

 6 ozone problem. 

 7 I know that my sound is an irrelevant point 

 8 because EPA does not have competence to address public 

 9 awareness projects or activities, but I wish EPA would 

10 find a way in the Agency to object or approach, to 

11 develop a project to educate the public about changing 

12 consumer behavior in their daily activities to really 

13 consider to what extent they contribute to aggravate the 

14 air pollution situation. 

15 Thank you very much for the time. 

16 MR. MOW: Good morning, my name is Vincent 

17 Mow. I'm a principal with MACTEC Engineering and 

18 Consulting within the air quality group with over 15 

19 years experience in mobile source emission activity with 

20 EPA. 

21 MACTEC Engineering Services span both 

22 stationary as well as mobile sources of pollutants from 

0066

 1 source permitting to technology selection and even 

 2 oversight of vehicle inspection maintenance programs. 

 3 We have assisted with development of U.S. EPA air 

 4 quality modeling. I currently co-chair a working group 

 5 involved with a development of standards for wireless 

 6 emission inspections of vehicles under the Clean Air 

 7 Advisory Council. 

 8 Based on this experience, I'd just like to 

 9 offer a few comments on the proposed National Air 

10 Quality Standards and the importance of federal support 

11 for improved and expanded vehicle inspection programs to 

12 meet today's clean air challenges. 

13 With highway vehicles accounting for as much 

14 as a third of the emissions inventory of contributing 
file:///C|/...%20Documents/This%20Weeks%20Work/DIS%20349_Ozone%20Public%20Hearing/Ozone,%20meeting%20-%20Vol.%20I.txt[2/25/2010 9:23:09 AM]

15 ground-level ozone, the vehicle fleet subject to 

16 emission inspection throughout North America will likely 

17 continue to represent the most significant source of 

18 control of ozone precursor emissions. 

19 With the level of stringency the proposed air 

20 quality standards represent, it follows that improved 

21 and expanded vehicle emissions inspection programs will 

22 be necessitated. And I offer the following points in 

0067

 1 support of that presumption: 

 2 With even current standards for ambient ozone 

 3 attainment studies, actual program performance indicate 

 4 that the inspection maintenance remains the most direct 

 5 means to cost effective control of mobile source 

 6 emissions despite doubling of motor vehicle fleet sizes 

 7 in many metropolitan statistical areas since the '70s 

 8 and '80s. That's based on the studies in Metropolitan 

 9 Houston, Denver, Los Angeles, and Atlanta. 

10 While there are measurable pollution 

11 reductions that accrue the current and proposed low 

12 emission vehicle certification standards, new car 

13 emission performance alone does not guarantee mobile 

14 source attainment. High mileage studies for every new 

15 vehicle continue to show that end use emissions can 

16 eventually deteriorate to gross emission levels, both 

17 tailpipe and adaptor emissions and the absence of 

18 inspection program influence. A simple test of this 

19 assumption is the continuing incidence of vehicles that 

20 arrive at inspection facilities with malfunction 

21 indicator lights illuminated. If these motorists are 

22 going to respond to the check engine light at all, why 

0068

 1 do they not do so before submitting the emissions 

 2 inspection? 

 3 While literally IM program design did not meet 

 4 the most optimistic projections for pollution reduction, 

 5 with today's improvements in automation of testing 

 6 technology and data network design, MACTEC can provide 

 7 quantitative evidence. The cost efficiency of testing 

 8 and repair have never been greater. Some of that data 

 9 coming from programs that we have been directly involved 

10 with. 

11 One of the increasing challenges we face is 

12 that with improvements in emission performance for newer 

13 vehicles, emission controlled systems can become more 

14 complex and the manning of repair technician competence. 

15 To maintain repair effectiveness with the advent of 

16 oncore diagnostic technology, state and federal 

17 jurisdictions must continue to rise to the challenge of 

18 assuring the competence of certified repair technicians 

19 and availability of effective emission repairs for all 

20 owners. 

21 After 20 years of publicly funded development, 

22 the IM infrastructure of the United States represents a 
file:///C|/...%20Documents/This%20Weeks%20Work/DIS%20349_Ozone%20Public%20Hearing/Ozone,%20meeting%20-%20Vol.%20I.txt[2/25/2010 9:23:09 AM]

0069

 1 capability to assure the emissions integrity of the 

 2 North American fleet. 

 3 In retrospect, it is clear that the stringency 

 4 of federal oversight has not always kept pace with 

 5 shortcomings and individual programs. With the 

 6 appropriate level of technical or policy support, 

 7 however, the IM programs of today can and should provide 

 8 the cornerstone of reasonable attainment measures for 

 9 the proposed revised NAAQS. 

10 Thank you very much. 

11 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you. 

12 I just want to clarify that the Clean Air Act 

13 prohibits us from taking cost into account when setting 

14 the health-base standard for the National Air Quality 

15 Standards. 

16 I don't know if the panel has any questions. 

17 I'll call Jack Pierce and Cal Baier-Anderson. 

18 MS. ANDERSON: My name is Caroline 

19 Baier-Anderson. I am a senior health scientist at 

20 Environmental Defense Fund, which is a national 

21 non-partisan environmental organization. Thank you for 

22 the opportunity to testify at the EPA's hearing on the 

0070

 1 proposed revisions to the Nation's emissions 

 2 health-based National Ambient Air Quality Standards for 

 3 ground-level ozone. 

 4 Given the preponderance of evidence of ozone 

 5 health effects and ambient concentrations, we applaud 

 6 EPA's decision to re-evaluate the 2008 ozone standard of 

 7 75 parts per billion, which departed sharply from both 

 8 the analyses provided by the EPA proposal staff and the 

 9 expert opinion of the Clean Air Scientific Committee or 

10 CASAC. 

11 We thank EPA for restoring science to the 

12 decision-making process and for recommending a more 

13 health protective standard between 60 and 70 parts per 

14 billion. EDF supports a primary ozone standard of 60 

15 parts per billion as offering the best protection for 

16 our Nation's children and the elderly, those with asthma 

17 and the vulnerable populations that urgently need 

18 protection against an array of ozone-related adverse 

19 health effects including premature mortality. And we 

20 support a secondary standard for ozone that is anchored 

21 in biology to provide increased protection against ozone 

22 related adverse impacts on our Nation's farms and 

0071

 1 forests and ecosystems. There is abundant evidence that 

 2 children, people with asthma, outdoor workers, and the 

 3 elderly are more severely affected by ozone due to 

 4 either increased sensitivity, greater exposure, or both. 

 5 The NAAQS for ozone must provide an adequate margin of 

 6 safety to protect the vulnerable populations. We think 

 7 that the 60 parts per billion standard is the best 
file:///C|/...%20Documents/This%20Weeks%20Work/DIS%20349_Ozone%20Public%20Hearing/Ozone,%20meeting%20-%20Vol.%20I.txt[2/25/2010 9:23:09 AM]

 8 option for achieving these goals. 

 9 The lowering of ozone requires the lowering of 

10 chemical precursor such as NOx and VOCs. NOx, also, of 

11 course, contribute to the formation pm 2.5, and together 

12 these reductions will contribute significantly to the 

13 health benefits of the stronger ozone standard. EPA has 

14 re-calculated the value of these co-benefits. For 

15 example, an ozone standard of 60 parts per billion could 

16 translate to a combined morbidity and mortality net 

17 benefit up to $48 billion when the co-benefits from 

18 decreasing 2.5 are included in the calculation. 

19 The CASAC found that new studies have provided 

20 evidence for an increase in premature levels well below 

21 the current standard. And the National Research Council 

22 confirmed EPA's assessment of the relationship between 

0072

 1 ozone and premature mortality. In order to reduce 

 2 premature mortality with an adequate margin of safety, 

 3 we urge EPA to adopt the 60 parts per billion standard. 

 4 And, in fact, EPA's own analysis demonstrates that the 

 5 standard of 60 parts per billion will result in nearly 

 6 six-fold reduction in premature mortality, over the 75 

 7 parts per billion standard when considering pm 2.5 

 8 co-benefits. 

 9 And I have included in my written testimony a 

10 black and white graph displaying these results, but I do 

11 want to point out that in the colorful graphs that were 

12 developed in conjunction with the American Lung 

13 Association, we also see this data as well as some 

14 additional health benefits graphs. 

15 Another example is with asthma. According to 

16 the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, the annual 

17 cost of asthma is estimated to be $18 billion. In order 

18 to reduce ozone-associated asthma exacerbations with an 

19 adequate margin of safety, once again, we believe that 

20 60 parts per billion standard will get us close to where 

21 we need to be. 

22 And this is graphically displayed in the 

0073

 1 materials that I provided. We also would like to thank 

 2 the Administrator for proposing a welfare-based standard 

 3 to protect American's forest plants and agriculture 

 4 commodities. I won't go into details here, but I do 

 5 have some additional thoughts in my written testimony on 

 6 this. 

 7 I do want to point out that we think lowering 

 8 ozone is feasible. We've made progress since the 1987 

 9 standard. In fact, our analysis shows that based on EPA 

10 data, more than 58 million people are now living the 

11 clean air as a result of the 1997 standard. The science 

12 has evolved. We can do better. We believe that America 

13 is up to the task and that it is important to set the 

14 bar high. 

15 So in closing, we respectively ask 
file:///C|/...%20Documents/This%20Weeks%20Work/DIS%20349_Ozone%20Public%20Hearing/Ozone,%20meeting%20-%20Vol.%20I.txt[2/25/2010 9:23:09 AM]

16 Administrator Jackson to continue to follow the path of 

17 science, the course charted by EPA independent CASAC, 

18 and be guided by EPA's own proposal staff in continuing 

19 the Clean Air Act mandates this protection of human 

20 health program from ground-level ozone with an adequate 

21 margin of safety, and that the 60 parts per billion 

22 standard will most likely get us there. Thank you.

0074

 1 MR. PIERCE: Good morning, my name is Jack 

 2 Pierce. I am here to offer comments and support of the 

 3 U.S. EPA's new proposed rule based on its 

 4 reconsideration of the primary and secondary National 

 5 Ambient Air Quality Standards. The EPA proposes to set 

 6 different primary and secondary standards than those set 

 7 in 2008 to provide protection for the public health 

 8 welfare respectively. 

 9 The primary standard for '03 to be set at the 

10 lower level more in keeping with scientific 

11 demand requires that the secondary standard we believe 

12 is long overdue to protect the health of our natural 

13 resources. 

14 I offer the supporting comments representing a 

15 non-profit trade association called CITA. We were 

16 founded in 1958 in Brussels. We have memberships in 

17 jurisdictions throughout North America and Asia. We are 

18 composed of academics, scientists, non-profit 

19 associations, and people involved in automotive 

20 technology and in automotive emissions repair for 

21 mediation strategies. These comments are arranged in 

22 basically three simple sessions. 

0075

 1 The first addresses the new lower levels. The 

 2 second pertains to the inspection and maintenance 

 3 industry and why it was created to address some of these 

 4 issues. And the last offers some personal insight to 

 5 new technologies created by the IM inspection 

 6 maintenance industry. The new NAAQS set range of .060 

 7 and .070 are not extreme in my view or even particularly 

 8 overstrict. They are data based and long overdue. 

 9 It is clear in my travels that ozone levels, 

10 though decreased, have not decreased sufficiently or 

11 anything like what the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 

12 envisioned them to be. In fact, as a father of a son, 

13 additionally that has, since childhood, asthma, I agree 

14 that the new standard is essential for the health of our 

15 citizens and the preservation of our forests and parks. 

16 I have been involved in mediation personally 

17 for over 20 years in various roles and governments, 

18 non-profit, and as I've said, the IM operations 

19 themselves. I have viewed these issues from all sides. 

20 I understand the federal government and health 

21 regulations, what impact and outside forces go into 

22 those. I understand how difficult it is to advocate for 

0076
file:///C|/...%20Documents/This%20Weeks%20Work/DIS%20349_Ozone%20Public%20Hearing/Ozone,%20meeting%20-%20Vol.%20I.txt[2/25/2010 9:23:09 AM]

 1 clean air, and I also understand the technology and 

 2 problems of operations to attempt to clean up these 

 3 issues. And that's what I wanted to conclude on. 

 4 The infrastructure for the inspection and 

 5 repair industry has been up and running now for over 20 

 6 years. We are proud of it, those of us who work in it. 

 7 We are proud of what we can do. We are quite convinced 

 8 it can do a better job. In fact, if there is 

 9 frustration on my part here it is that this industry has 

10 never been allowed to function along the lines of what 

11 technology, science, and day-to-day operations would 

12 enable them to do. 

13 Moves 2010, the latest EPA mobile model, for 

14 example, predicts many things. One of them is that 

15 approximately 40 to 60 percent fewer reductions of a 

16 typical IM program is what is achievable and attainable 

17 among those states that institutes such programs. This 

18 industry has created, which include but are not limited 

19 to on-board diagnostic inspections or on-board 

20 diagnostic road technologies anti-fraud prevention 

21 technologies, trend analysis trigger reported and data 

22 analysis are fully utilized and capable of exceeding the 

0077

 1 emission reduction prediction of 5 percent for VOCs and 

 2 16 percent for NOx reduction. 

 3 I can anecdotally bore this audience to tears 

 4 with tails of polluting vehicles perfectly asking to 

 5 state permitting standards that we know are polluting 

 6 beyond what simple maintenance would permit them to do. 

 7 IM programs can efficiently and accurately, 

 8 and I am aware that cost does not play a role, reduce 

 9 all of the concerns here, and they can do so, not just 

10 with saving jobs, but promoting employment. I think 

11 that's germane. 

12 The IM industry employs, in the private sector 

13 alone, over 120,000 people in good paying scientific 

14 technological not made work positions. The analyses 

15 significant economic benefits from IM programs includes 

16 not just these jobs, but the fact that other jobs are 

17 saved and not lost if these programs are efficiently and 

18 effectively administered and implemented. 

19 Thank you for your time. We will be 

20 presenting expanded comments on this subject. 

21 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you. 

22 Questions from the panel? 

0078

 1 I'd like to call Tim Stevens and Ana Prados. 

 2 MR. STEVENS: Good morning, my name is Tim 

 3 Stevens. I'm a resident here locally in the City of 

 4 Falls Church. I'm retired, but actively involved in a 

 5 number of organizations, including the Environmental 

 6 Services Council of our City, CR Club and a number of 

 7 other organizations. I am here, however, to speak on my 

 8 own behalf. The EPA has proposed new standards for the 
file:///C|/...%20Documents/This%20Weeks%20Work/DIS%20349_Ozone%20Public%20Hearing/Ozone,%20meeting%20-%20Vol.%20I.txt[2/25/2010 9:23:09 AM]

 9 National Ambient Air Quality. On the lower end of those 

10 limits it's 60 parts per billion for the primary 

11 standard and 7 parts per million for the secondary 

12 standard. I strongly urge you to adopt the lower limits 

13 of those standards. 

14 Now, health care costs in our country are 

15 doubled than in other industrialized countries. I have 

16 no doubt that our dirty air contributes in part to those 

17 elevated costs. Even a small community, such as ours is 

18 affected in terms of its environment by the dirty air. 

19 We received the tree city award since that award was 

20 developed; and yet, our tree canopy has declined from 30 

21 percent to 25 percent over the last decade. No doubt 

22 due to the accumulated effects of dirty air over the 

0079

 1 summer, including ground-level ozone. The corrective 

 2 actions that are required to achieve attainment are not 

 3 costs in my opinion but necessary investments in our 

 4 health and the futurability of where we work and reside. 

 5 One of the earlier respondents indicated that 

 6 they were concerned that those counties that would fall 

 7 on non-attainment would lose business. I believe she's 

 8 correct. That's because they would probably seek out 

 9 those counties that are in attainment, and that's the 

10 correct result. 

11 I encourage the EPA to adopt the lower limit 

12 of the proposed standards. I thank you for holding the 

13 hearing today and thank you for providing my opportunity 

14 to input. 

15 MS. PRADOS: Good morning, my name is Dr. Ana 

16 Prados. I live here in Springfield. I am a 

17 atmospheric scientist with 15 years experience working 

18 on air quality issues, including monitoring air 

19 pollutants. I work for one of the area -- one of the 

20 universities here in the D.C. area, and I also serve in 

21 the Technical Advisory Committee to the Metropolitan 

22 Environments Air Quality Committee, but I am here 

0080

 1 representing myself today. 

 2 I agree with your decision to follow the 

 3 advice of EPA's scientists and those of the Clean Air 

 4 Scientific Advisory Committee in 2007 to revise the 

 5 ozone standard to a level that is more protective of 

 6 public health than the current standard. 

 7 The recommendations of this Committee were 

 8 unfortunately ignored by the previous administration in 

 9 2008. So I was very happy to see the EPA's concern of 

10 the protection of public health and that of the 

11 environment. 

12 It would be very helpful if the EPA, in 

13 consideration of the various options available -- and I 

14 can see you have done already -- provide some 

15 quantification of the risks and benefits of each option 

16 because you could do 60, 65, 70 parts per billion. I 
file:///C|/...%20Documents/This%20Weeks%20Work/DIS%20349_Ozone%20Public%20Hearing/Ozone,%20meeting%20-%20Vol.%20I.txt[2/25/2010 9:23:09 AM]

17 think this will be very helpful to the public and it 

18 will help all scientists and the public to understand 

19 the rationale for your final decision. EPA's decision 

20 should also leave a good margin of safety in the 

21 protection of public health as required by law. 

22 Here in the D.C. area, we still don't meet the 

0081

 1 current standard for ozone, primarily due to the 

 2 automobiles and some of the power generating facilities 

 3 in the D.C. area as well as due to sources, the 

 4 transport of ozone precursors, primarily the transport 

 5 of NO2. It is also well known that the code red days in 

 6 the D.C. area due to ozone cause increased asthma 

 7 attacks and hospitalization, so we look forward to 

 8 seeing the incidents of those go down. 

 9 One final point I want to make, in order for 

10 the D.C. area to meet the new ozone standard, an 

11 increase of NOx concentrations in the area here in D.C. 

12 and in upwind will be necessary. Lowering ambient NOx 

13 concentration would help affect most of the U.S. meet 

14 the new ozone standards that you are proposing, 

15 particularly in areas that are NOx limited. NOx limited 

16 means in order to reduce ozone in a most efficient way 

17 and effective way to do that is by reducing NO2. 

18 So I was pleased to see that EPA was proposing 

19 a new hourly and possibly a new annual standard above 

20 the NOx. However, I was a little disappointed on the 

21 final decision of the new hourly and annual NO2 

22 standards because I think these might not be 

0082

 1 sufficiently low for jurisdictions to be able to meet 

 2 the ozone standards that you are proposing. I think the 

 3 states are going to have a lot of difficulty with this. 

 4 And it appears that the NO2 in the ozone policies were 

 5 not developed in conjunction, and maybe that needs to be 

 6 considered further. 

 7 Thank you. 

 8 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you. 

 9 Questions from the panel? 

10 I'd like to call Ms. Ladduwahetty and Kirsten 

11 Collings. 

12 MS. LADDUWAHETTY. My name is K. Ladduwahetty. 

13 Thank you so much for this opportunity. I live in 

14 Washington, D.C. I am a member of the CR Club of D.C. 

15 for Democracy and a number of organizations, but I am 

16 here to testify as a private citizen. I am here to 

17 strongly support the EPA in your proposed rule making, 

18 and I urge you to uphold the lower limit of 60 parts per 

19 billion. I am here as a citizen today because I feel 

20 like I have so little power as a consumer to express my 

21 values through the marketplace. 

22 And I understand from a little while ago that 

0083

 1 you can't take costs into account in enforcing the Clean 
file:///C|/...%20Documents/This%20Weeks%20Work/DIS%20349_Ozone%20Public%20Hearing/Ozone,%20meeting%20-%20Vol.%20I.txt[2/25/2010 9:23:09 AM]

 2 Air Act, but many of the arguments we have heard from 

 3 industry today relate to costs, and so I would like to 

 4 talk about that from my perspective as a consumer. I'm 

 5 very conscious that today we pay a heavy price for these 

 6 weaker air pollution standards. 

 7 All of us in this room are paying for the 

 8 treatment of diseases, for lost productivity, for lost 

 9 crops, as I learned this morning, resulting from air 

10 pollution. So there are many costs that all of us bear 

11 today as to the results of the ground-level ozone. We 

12 pay for these costs through higher health insurance 

13 premiums, higher prices, and higher taxes; and, yet, we 

14 are not in a position to really tell the power 

15 companies, for example, as consumers that we would 

16 rather pay a little more for our electricity than to pay 

17 for the emergency room treatment for a D.C. child. And 

18 we are not able to tell the oil companies that we'd 

19 rather pay higher rates for our gasoline than paying 

20 higher prices for lost productivity. 

21 So basically, I think that many of us would 

22 prefer to pay to prevent this problem rather than to pay 

0084

 1 to repair it. And I feel like this is an example like 

 2 so many of market failures where something like air 

 3 pollution, which the economists call externalities, 

 4 basically cannot be taken into account through the 

 5 normal market process. And that is where it's so 

 6 important for EPA and government in general to use its 

 7 regulatory authority to correct these market failures, 

 8 because we as consumers are just not in a position to 

 9 express our values through the marketplace. 

10 So we leave it up to. Thank you so much for 

11 this opportunity. 

12 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you. 

13 Ms. Collings? 

14 MS. COLLINGS: My name is Kirsten Collings, 

15 and I am the campaign director with the Chesapeake 

16 Action Network. We have offices in Maryland and 

17 Virginia, and we are clean energy solutions through 

18 climate change throughout the region. And thank you for 

19 the opportunity to testify here today. 

20 Let me begin by saying it feels good to be 

21 testifying today before the EPA in support of your 

22 actions. The first time I gave EPA testimony was in 

0085

 1 college, and it was against the new source review, 

 2 Rollbacks. So I'm happy to say that today, both 

 3 professionally and personally, that I'm here in support 

 4 of your proposed rule to strengthen the regulations on 

 5 ozone pollution and to encourage to have the strictest 

 6 limits within the range you are considering. 

 7 So personally I grew up in Western North 

 8 Carolina near the Great Smokey Mountain National Park, 

 9 and I have seen the impacts of haze. Unfortunately, 
file:///C|/...%20Documents/This%20Weeks%20Work/DIS%20349_Ozone%20Public%20Hearing/Ozone,%20meeting%20-%20Vol.%20I.txt[2/25/2010 9:23:09 AM]

10 most people think that smokey refers to nature doing her 

11 work, and it used to, but it now refers to the intense 

12 pollution brought to the mountains from coal power 

13 plants and the tailpipes of our vehicles. 

14 Professionally, I work throughout the 

15 Chesapeake region on smart energy solutions. Here in 

16 Virginia, our state officials need directives to clean 

17 up our air. We have 21 coal plants, some in dire need 

18 of pollution control upgrades. We have very poor 

19 options for public transportation outside of Northern 

20 Virginia. And in the midst of our efforts to promote 

21 energy efficiency and clean up dirty power plants, we 

22 are also dealing with a proposal for a massive new 1500 

0086

 1 megawatt coal fire power plant right in the heart of the 

 2 non-attainment region. And I don't need to tell you 

 3 that this is a region that is already in non-attainment 

 4 according to the current smog regulation levels. 

 5 In looking at the EPA ozone pollution map, I 

 6 saw that the entire State of Maryland and the District 

 7 of Columbia are in non-attainment currently. We clearly 

 8 have a problem in this region for smog. 

 9 We in the clean energy field realize that the 

10 solution to this problem is to move away from dirty fuel 

11 sources and the smog transportation options and instead 

12 invest in clean energy, smart growth, and mass transit. 

13 And we in partnership with many other organizations and 

14 citizens in this room, have been working hard to create 

15 the political wealth and exchanges, and we thank you for 

16 doing your part to set the scientific standards. 

17 I applaud your decision to follow the science 

18 and impose stricter regulations on smog pollution. And 

19 I urge you to set the primary standard at the strictest 

20 limit of 60 parts per billion to protect our health. 

21 And the secondary standard to 7 ppm hours to protect our 

22 environment. Thank you. 

0087

 1 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you. 

 2 Any questions from the panel? 

 3 I'd like to call Paul Billings and Antoine 

 4 McGraw. 

 5 MR. BILLINGS: Good morning. I am pleased to 

 6 speak in support of the American Lung Association. 

 7 American Lung Association is the Nation's oldest 

 8 voluntary health organization. Our mission is to save 

 9 lives by improving long health and preventing lung 

10 disease. 

11 Air pollution, ozone smog, harms health. The 

12 Clean Air Act requires EPA to clean it up. It is 

13 fitting that today is Ground Hog Day, because I am here 

14 to repeat what I said to EPA on a warm summer day in 

15 August of 2007 in Philadelphia. The American Lung 

16 Association calls on EPA to adopt a primary National 

17 Ambient Air Quality Standard of 60 parts per billion 
file:///C|/...%20Documents/This%20Weeks%20Work/DIS%20349_Ozone%20Public%20Hearing/Ozone,%20meeting%20-%20Vol.%20I.txt[2/25/2010 9:23:09 AM]

18 averaged over eight hours. 

19 I am here today to reprise what I said in 

20 early 1997, that the Clean Air Act requires that the 

21 standards be set at levels that no longer harm health, 

22 with an adequate margin of safety. This is the clear 

0088

 1 intent of Congress, and this has been affirmed by the 

 2 Supreme Court. 

 3 I am here today to thank EPA for the 

 4 opportunity to be redundant because EPA has decided to 

 5 reconsider a clear error in violation of the law. In 

 6 2008, EPA chose to ignore the science and the law. And 

 7 EPA set a standard that was not protective of public 

 8 health and certainly did not include an adequate margin 

 9 of safety. 

10 We employ EPA to get it right this time at 60 

11 pp over eight hours and move quickly to implement the 

12 standard with the requisite pollution clean up. 

13 As I have testified before, I am not simply 

14 here because it is my job. I am also here because I am 

15 a parent. My wife and I are blessed to have two active 

16 and healthy daughters. Like every parent, every 

17 individual who breathes, I care deeply about the air 

18 quality that my family and I breathe. As a soccer dad, 

19 I have seen firsthand my daughters' teammates struggle 

20 with asthma attacks on smoggy days. 

21 In my wife's third grade class in Wheaton, 

22 Maryland, there are far too many children with asthma 

0089

 1 who are at risk from air pollution. The Clean Air Act 

 2 requires that this standard must protect all of these 

 3 children and all children whose lungs are still 

 4 developing and all other vulnerable populations. 

 5 I am here today because the standard is 

 6 overdue. Yes, the do-over is required, the Ground Hog 

 7 Day, but even if EPA finally gets it right and sets a 

 8 standard at 60 ppb, the delay has an enormous input. It 

 9 can even cost lives. These costs are worn each smoggy 

10 day by breathers, the young and the old, those with lung 

11 diseases, like asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary 

12 disease, and folks who work, play, or exercise outdoors. 

13 I'm also here today to say to EPA that the law 

14 is clear, the science is clear, get it right. The Clean 

15 Air Act Scientific Advisory Committee, 23 esteemed and 

16 independent scientists have unanimously stated that EPA 

17 must set a standard between 60 and 70 ppb. EPA's 

18 analysts looked at over 1700 studies. There is 

19 compelling scientific evidence that health is impacted 

20 at and below 60 ppb.

21 I'm here today to speak in support of a margin 

22 of safety. 60 parts per billion is the most protective 

0090

 1 standard under consideration in the EPA proposal. If 

 2 EPA does net set a standard at 60 parts per billion, I 
file:///C|/...%20Documents/This%20Weeks%20Work/DIS%20349_Ozone%20Public%20Hearing/Ozone,%20meeting%20-%20Vol.%20I.txt[2/25/2010 9:23:09 AM]

 3 challenge EPA to explain what possible lawful 

 4 justification they would have to set a standard that is 

 5 less protective than 60 parts per billion. 

 6 EPA's data shows that at 60 parts per billion 

 7 it will save between 4,000 and 12,000 lives per year. 

 8 EPA's data also shows that the standards set at 60 ppb 

 9 will prevent 58,000 asthma attacks each year. These are 

10 strong and powerful data. There is a scientific 

11 consensus, the law is unambiguous, EPA must set a 

12 standard that protects public health with an adequate 

13 margin of safety. 

14 On behalf of the American Lung Association, I 

15 urge you to adopt a substantially stronger ozone 

16 standard, 60 parts per billion. Please follow the law; 

17 please follow the science. Thank you very much. 

18 MR. MCGRAW: My name is Antoine McGraw. I am 

19 a member of the public. I will try and be brief with 

20 your time, although I won't be as efficient as a 

21 Marlboro disclaimer, although I do care about our 

22 health. I am from Napa, California. That's where I was 

0091

 1 born and raised. I went and studied environmental 

 2 management at California Polytechnic, a state run school 

 3 that is interested in sending students into the 

 4 industry. If I had known there would be so many 

 5 industry reps or consultants, I would have brought my 

 6 resume, but I didn't think about that at the time. 

 7 We've heard from some of these people -- and 

 8 of course, they're willing to fight tooth and nail 

 9 against any regulation that might hinder their pockets. 

10 It's understandable. I would as well, but of course 

11 this is -- and they might even make abstract analogies 

12 if desperate enough. But since you are with the EPA, 

13 you are concerned with health, so I urge you to consider 

14 the air quality that those players will be breathing in.

15 This proposal is about the American health 

16 quality. I did have the opportunity after graduating to 

17 go across the country by bicycle and get involved in 

18 federal policy just because I realized during my studies 

19 that was probably the most important thing I can get 

20 involved in, and that's what brings me here today. 

21 At any rate, I met many Americans during the 

22 58-day bicycle solo trip. And it's them that I think 

0092

 1 about when I ask you to improve the air quality across 

 2 this country. I do plan on doing this trip again with 

 3 my younger sister one day, and I hope we can on 

 4 healthier air quality as well. 

 5 During my journey, I could taste different air 

 6 qualities, and then some days it even hindered my 

 7 abilities. So this is something that I take very 

 8 personal. I felt vulnerable to air qualities. It's not 

 9 something I can do anything personally about. But as 

10 far as the grand scheme goes, of course, I ride my bike 
file:///C|/...%20Documents/This%20Weeks%20Work/DIS%20349_Ozone%20Public%20Hearing/Ozone,%20meeting%20-%20Vol.%20I.txt[2/25/2010 9:23:09 AM]

11 and do that as much as I can, but I am asking you to set 

12 federal standards. So please do that. Thank you. 

13 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you. 

14 Any questions from the panel? 

15 I'd like to call Nick Goldstein and Calen 

16 Christopher May-Tobin. 

17 MR. GOLDSTEIN: Good morning, I'm Nick 

18 Goldstein, assistant general counsel for the American 

19 Road and Transportation Builders Association, ARTBA. 

20 ARTBA represents more than 5,000 members nationwide 

21 involved in all sectors of the transportation, design, 

22 and construction industry. I would like to begin my 

0093

 1 statement by thanking the committee for the opportunity 

 2 to speak at today's public hearing regarding the 

 3 reconsideration of the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality 

 4 Standards or NAAQS ozone. 

 5 According to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, 

 6 the purpose for reviewing the 2008 ozone NAAQS is to 

 7 ensure they're scientifically sound and protective of 

 8 the public health and the environment. To assist in 

 9 achieving this goal, ARTBA would like to provide its 

10 unique perspective on the recommendation for tightening 

11 the current ozone standards. 

12 The stated goal of reviewing the ozone NAAQS 

13 is to improve both public health and the environment. 

14 This is a commendable objective and one shared by ARTBA. 

15 EPA must, however, be cognizant of the impact 

16 more stringent ozone standards would have on other 

17 federal emissions. Nearly 42,000 people die on U.S. 

18 highways each year, and many federally funded highway 

19 improvements are designed specifically to address these 

20 safety issues. As such, in posing new ozone standards 

21 that lead to highway improvements being denied could be 

22 counterproductive to improving public health. 

0094

 1 Jeopardizing highway funding in new areas for the 

 2 implementations of EPA's recommendations is 

 3 self-defeating and want to impose new obstacles for 

 4 needed transportation improvements that will cut both 

 5 harmful emissions and billions of dollars and waste of 

 6 motor fuel costs by traffic congestion. 

 7 When considering new ozone standards, it's 

 8 important to know that EPA's own report has indicated an 

 9 overall decline in ozone pollution in the past 35 years. 

10 This decline has occurred despite an overwhelmingly 

11 growth in population, vehicle miles traveled, energy 

12 consumption, and growth domestic product. As EPA 

13 reported last year, between 1980 and 2008, growth 

14 domestic product increased 126 percent; vehicle miles 

15 travels increased 91 percent; energy consumption 

16 increased 29 percent, and the U.S. population grew by 34 

17 percent. 

18 During that same period, total emissions of 
file:///C|/...%20Documents/This%20Weeks%20Work/DIS%20349_Ozone%20Public%20Hearing/Ozone,%20meeting%20-%20Vol.%20I.txt[2/25/2010 9:23:09 AM]

19 the six principal air pollutants dropped by 54 percent. 

20 Specifically, there has been a decline in the overall 

21 concentration level of criteria pollutants for ozone of 

22 25 percent in the past 20 years. This progress has 

0095

 1 occurred both prior to and since the implementation of 

 2 existing ozone NAAQS. Furthermore, this continuing 

 3 improvement indicates the current standard is working 

 4 and there is no need for any modification. 

 5 Further, the EPA must consider reductions in 

 6 ozone levels which will occur as a direct result of both 

 7 existing regulations and those yet to take effect. 

 8 Dramatic improvements in ozone levels will come from the 

 9 implementation recently enacted and soon to be enacted 

10 regulations in areas such as sulfur levels in gasoline, 

11 heavy duty diesel engines, and highway vehicles, heavy 

12 duty trucks, and buses, and emissions with non-road 

13 diesel engines. 

14 The revisions to the ozone standards proposed 

15 by EPA would greatly increase the stringent ozone 

16 regulation at a time when implementation existing 

17 standards is already resulting in noticeable progress. 

18 Counties need some sense of predictability, 

19 plans to achieve ozone reduction. The current 

20 regulations were enacted in 2008, less than two years 

21 ago. Additional requirements will only serve to hamper 

22 efforts to comply with the current standard by opening 

0096

 1 the door of possible litigation and sanctions 

 2 potentially resulting in the loss of federal funding for 

 3 transportation construction projects. This would be 

 4 self-defeating driving as highway improvements are a 

 5 driving force behind dramatic reduction in ozone and 

 6 other pollutants which are already taking place. 

 7 Any tightening of the ozone standards will 

 8 likely result in communities being thrown out of 

 9 compliance with the Clean Air Act, and in turn face 

10 federal highway funds for those areas at risk. 

11 In addition to the aforementioned increases in 

12 DMT and population, the federal highway administration 

13 data shows substantial increases in the overall number 

14 of highway vehicles up 58 percent and licensed drivers 

15 up 41 percent since 1980. During the same time period, 

16 the number of miles in the United States has only 

17 increased by 6 percent. The Nation's road system is not 

18 keeping up with an ever growing congestion problem. 

19 Jeopardizing highway funds for these areas through the 

20 implementation of EPA's proposal would exacerbate this 

21 problem by imposing new obstacles for needed 

22 transportation improvements that can cut both harmful 

0097

 1 emissions and wasted motor fuel. 

 2 In conclusion, ARTBA urges the Committee to 

 3 take notice of the current progress that has been and 
file:///C|/...%20Documents/This%20Weeks%20Work/DIS%20349_Ozone%20Public%20Hearing/Ozone,%20meeting%20-%20Vol.%20I.txt[2/25/2010 9:23:09 AM]

 4 will be made in cutting overall levels of ozone before 

 5 approaching public policy decisions which will result in 

 6 further regulations. Counties attempting to take a step 

 7 forward to meet the 2008 standards should not be forced 

 8 to take two steps back and adjust the new standards less 

 9 than two years later. 

10 Current programs, which are reducing ozone 

11 must be given a chance to be implemented before new 

12 standards or initiatives are considered. Additional 

13 regulation at this point are akin to -- and I'll admit, 

14 I'm thinking about the Super Bowl -- moving the goalpost 

15 and running the risk of compliance and efforts and 

16 should not be pursued. Thank you. 

17 MR. MAY-TOBIN: Hello. My name is Calen 

18 May-Tobin. I am speaking today on behalf of the union 

19 of concerned scientists. I want to thank the panel for 

20 giving me the opportunity to testify on EPA's proposal 

21 to revise the National Air Quality Standard for ozone. 

22 I am pleased that the EPA is taking a step 

0098

 1 towards cleaner air by following the law and proposing 

 2 to strengthen the National Air Quality Standard, 

 3 consistent with what independent scientists conclude 

 4 what's necessary to adequately detect human health. 

 5 Ozone is a powerful pollutant that can damage 

 6 our crops, our forests, and our public health. Ozone 

 7 can damage our lungs and our airways, causing coughing, 

 8 wheezing, asthma attacks, and even premature death. 

 9 Pregnant women, children, teenagers, senior citizens, 

10 and people with lung disease are particularly vulnerable 

11 to the health effects of ozone. Epidemiological and 

12 clinical studies show the healthy consequences of 

13 breathing ozone at levels lower than the current ambient 

14 air quality standard. In fact, clinical studies show 

15 that otherwise healthy adults have decreased lung 

16 function, increased respiratory symptoms, and increased 

17 susceptibility to lung infection at or below. 

18 In 2007, the independent Clean Air Scientific 

19 Advisory Committee, or CASAC, reviewed a 60-page summary 

20 of scientific research on the health impacts of ozone 

21 and unanimously concluded that an ozone standard greater 

22 than 0.070 parts per million is not adequate to protect 

0099

 1 human health. Under the Clean Air Act, air quality 

 2 standards must be set of levels that protect human 

 3 health, including those sensitive populations within an 

 4 adequate margin of safety. In fact, the Supreme Court 

 5 has ruled that the EPA may not consider any other 

 6 factors, such as economic costs when setting the ambient 

 7 air quality standards. Let me repeat that. EPA cannot 

 8 consider any other factors, just the science. 

 9 As a result, CASAC recommended setting a new 

10 ozone standard in the range of 60 to 70 parts per 

11 billion. When crafting the 2008 standard, the EPA 
file:///C|/...%20Documents/This%20Weeks%20Work/DIS%20349_Ozone%20Public%20Hearing/Ozone,%20meeting%20-%20Vol.%20I.txt[2/25/2010 9:23:09 AM]

12 disregarded and misrepresented scientific 

13 recommendations from CASAC and EPA's staff scientists. 

14 The standard was set at an arbitrary level, and it is 

15 inconsistent with the scientific consensus, ensuring 

16 that millions of Americans who live in communities at 

17 ozone concentrations at the high end of the allowable 

18 range continue to breathe toxic polluted air. 

19 This is not the only time political appointees 

20 and EPA fail to use the best available science in 

21 regulatory decisions. In 2005, EPA's appointees 

22 misrepresented science when setting the fine particulate 

0100

 1 matter standard, another harmful air pollutant. And in 

 2 2006, EPA announced that future air quality standards 

 3 could be based on recommendations by political 

 4 appointees and staff scientists rather than the 

 5 conclusions of independent scientific research. This 

 6 misinterpretation of the law was actually corrected last 

 7 year. 

 8 The proposed standard being discussed today is 

 9 based on the scientific recommendations from CASAC and 

10 restores science through its rightful place in the 

11 regulatory process. Based on the current science, the 

12 proposed standard will improve the quality of life from 

13 millions of Americans and save billions of dollars by 

14 protecting our crops. Every American deserves to 

15 breathe clean air. EPA should reject any pressure to 

16 retain the current standard and instead heed the 

17 scientific evidence and adopt the proposed ozone 

18 standard. 

19 Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. 

20 MS. OAKES: My name is Joy Oakes. I serve as 

21 a senior director of the National Parks Association in 

22 this mid Atlantic regions. The non-partisan NPCA is a 

0101

 1 nonprofit advocacy organization that works to protect 

 2 and enhance America's national parks. 

 3 Unhealthful ozone must be addressed in our 

 4 communities and in our national parks, because pollution 

 5 is generated largely elsewhere, visitors reasonably 

 6 expect our national parks to have clean healthful air, 

 7 and of course, the federal law requires it, but many 

 8 parks do not. 

 9 In a 2008 national park service report, one of 

10 every three parks studied showed ozone levels that were 

11 good or of moderate concern, just one out of three with 

12 the majority having levels of significant concern. 

13 Moreover, of all the pollutants the National 

14 Park Service monitors, ozone is showing the least 

15 improvement. Based on the serious threats posed by 

16 ozone pollution, NPCA urges the EPA to strengthen the 

17 ozone standard to protect public health by setting that 

18 standard at 60 parts per billion and to set a secondary 

19 standard to protect forests, plants, and animals at 7 
file:///C|/...%20Documents/This%20Weeks%20Work/DIS%20349_Ozone%20Public%20Hearing/Ozone,%20meeting%20-%20Vol.%20I.txt[2/25/2010 9:23:09 AM]

20 parts per million hours. 

21 NPCA members and millions of other Americans 

22 spend our time each summer enjoying our national parks. 

0102

 1 Year after year, we visit places like the National Mall 

 2 with 25 million visitors annually among the top tourist 

 3 attractions in the region. And those visits generate 

 4 economic benefits to local communities. 

 5 Unfortunately, on some days, it's unhealthy to 

 6 be active in a national park. Of America's 392 national 

 7 parks, more than one-half are located in areas with 

 8 ozone levels that currently exceed the most protective 

 9 health-based standard proposed by EPA, including 

10 Shenandoah National Park. I can list them, and it would 

11 end my time. 

12 But not only public health is at risk. 

13 Protecting public health should be a top priority, but 

14 EPA also must protect natural systems from ozone damage. 

15 Many tree species and other plants suffer damage from 

16 ozone at lower levels than those required to protect 

17 human health. And unlike people who can take temporary 

18 measures and go inside, the forest can't do that. Ozone 

19 damages and kills leaves stressing a plant's ability to 

20 produce food. Ozone reduces plant growth and 

21 productivity, resistance to diseases and pests, 

22 potentially leading to long-term negative impacts on 

0103

 1 forest and national ecosystems. 

 2 In summary, and in wrapping up, in addition to 

 3 setting the secondary ozone standard at 7 parts per 

 4 million hours, EPA should set an annual weighted index 

 5 and not averaged over multiple years, which would 

 6 distort and diminish the real impacts of years with high 

 7 ozone levels. 

 8 EPA should use a 24-hour, five-month summation 

 9 period. Significant evidence indicates that plants are 

10 most affected by ozone pollution at night. And in some 

11 of these high elevation places, Shenandoah National 

12 Park, Great Smokey Mountains, unlike down here in the 

13 flat lands, the ozone persists through the wee small 

14 hours of the morning. You wake up to ozone if you are a 

15 person. The trees sleep through it. 

16 Our national parks are a cultural and national 

17 heritage. Making our parks safe for visitors and 

18 protective of natural systems is a requirement of the 

19 Clean Air Act and a responsibility for all Americans. 

20 Thank you for this opportunity, and we will 

21 also be submitting technical comments for the record. 

22 MR. BRENDLE: My name is Bryan Brendle. I'm 

0104

 1 the director of energy resources policy of the National 

 2 Association of Manufacturers. We are the leading voice 

 3 of the manufacturer economy in the United States. We 

 4 have more than 11,000 numbers, which include a spectrum 
file:///C|/...%20Documents/This%20Weeks%20Work/DIS%20349_Ozone%20Public%20Hearing/Ozone,%20meeting%20-%20Vol.%20I.txt[2/25/2010 9:23:09 AM]

 5 of small, medium, and large size manufacturers in all 50 

 6 states. It is a leading voice for the manufacture 

 7 economy in Washington. We provide millions of highway 

 8 jobs in the United States. We generate more than $1.6 

 9 trillion in gross domestic product, where visions 

10 national quality standards for all criteria pollutants 

11 indirectly buy impacting sources, including power plants 

12 and fuel refineries that provide energy from the 

13 manufacturing sector. 

14 As a whole, manufactured sector actually uses 

15 one-third of all energy consumed in the United States 

16 annually. For these reasons, any revision of the ozone 

17 standard is a key interest to our members. And we 

18 appreciate the opportunity to submit additional 

19 comments. 

20 I just would like to remind you of a broader 

21 context in which its rule-making is taking place. 

22 During the 24-month period that ended in December of 

0105

 1 2009, the nation lost more than 2.1 million highway and 

 2 manufacturing jobs. As industrial sector begins to 

 3 emerge from a most severe economic downturn since the 

 4 1930s, federal policy makers should create conditions 

 5 that will lead to economic expansion and not stifle the 

 6 creativity and vitality necessary to create jobs and 

 7 technologies that will continue to improve the Nation's 

 8 air quality. In posing stricter ozone mandates on the 

 9 manufacturing sector will not accomplish many of these 

10 objectives. 

11 NAM poses a stricter ozone standard, 

12 especially since federal regulators already lowered the 

13 ozone standard in 2008 from 80 to 75 parts per billion 

14 to protect public health. Tightening the standard 

15 further is unnecessary and will result in mandating new 

16 compliance cost that will hinder the industry's ability 

17 to create jobs and reduce the Nation's double digit 

18 unemployment rate. 

19 According to EPA's own data, as you've already 

20 heard, ozone concentrations nationwide continue to 

21 decline by more than 25 percent from the period of 1980 

22 up to 2008. Nationally, according to NTPA's own 

0106

 1 statements, average ozone levels declined in the 1980s, 

 2 leveled off during the 1990s. EPA's current regulatory 

 3 agenda is literally piling on to the industrial sector 

 4 which will lead to environment business certainty in 

 5 order to create jobs. Not only has EPA already 

 6 tightened the ozone standard, the federal regulator 

 7 recently issued stricter NAAQS for nitrogen dioxide, 

 8 which will impose additional compliance cost on the 

 9 industry. 

10 EPA also proposes to tighten the standard for 

11 levels of sulfur dioxide with comments due to the agency 

12 next week. Also, in 2010, federal regulators are 
file:///C|/...%20Documents/This%20Weeks%20Work/DIS%20349_Ozone%20Public%20Hearing/Ozone,%20meeting%20-%20Vol.%20I.txt[2/25/2010 9:23:09 AM]

13 expected to revisit air quality standards for 

14 particulate matter, adding even more uncertainty for 

15 businesses seeking to add jobs in areas that are mainly 

16 designated as non-attainment. 

17 In addition to revisiting several standards 

18 for criteria of pollutants, federal regulators are also 

19 embarking on a plan to impose first-time limits on 

20 emissions of greenhouse gasses. In late November, EPA 

21 finalized a comment period for proposed GHG limits on 

22 emissions for light-duty trucks and cars. In late 

0107

 1 December, EPA also ended a comment period that would 

 2 mandate GHG limits on stationary sources. 

 3 Regulators are embarking on a path to regulate 

 4 GHG emissions when it's not even clear what technologies 

 5 industries must employ to comply with future mandates. 

 6 Such actions demonstrate an agenda that seems to be 

 7 coupled from realities of actual implementation. It 

 8 also stands to prospect for a realization to continue 

 9 environmental progress and to robust economic recovery. 

10 It would put millions of unemployed Americans back to 

11 work. 

12 We cannot help assure a climate of this 

13 uncertainty allowing our members to make poor decisions 

14 with respect to capital expenditures for pollution when 

15 EPA opposes stricter standards literally on the heels of 

16 already tightened standards. 

17 NAM looks forward to working with federal 

18 regulators in this very important issue. Thank you 

19 again. 

20 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you. 

21 Additional comments from the panel? 

22 I would like to call Barbara Gottlieb and 

0108

 1 Alison Wood. 

 2 MS. GOTTLIEB: I want to thank you for this 

 3 opportunity. I'm Barbara Gottlieb, and I am the deputy 

 4 director for Environmental Health and Physicians for 

 5 Social Responsibility or PSR. We are a national 

 6 organization representing 50,000 health professionals 

 7 and concerned citizens and activists in 31 chapters 

 8 across the nation. We appreciate this opportunity to 

 9 present our comments. 

10 First, we would like to thank and applaud the 

11 EPA for reconsidering the NAAQS for ozone. This is a 

12 very important standard to get right as ground-level 

13 ozone pollution, or smog, is the most pervasive air 

14 pollutant in the United States. An estimated one-third 

15 of Americans live in areas with unhealthy levels of 

16 ozone, putting this third of the population at risk for 

17 serious health problems. 

18 Ozone can inflame and damage the lining of the 

19 lung and aggravate lung diseases such as bronchitis and 

20 emphysema. It can also affect the cardiovascular 
file:///C|/...%20Documents/This%20Weeks%20Work/DIS%20349_Ozone%20Public%20Hearing/Ozone,%20meeting%20-%20Vol.%20I.txt[2/25/2010 9:23:09 AM]

21 system, aggravating pre-existing heart conditions and 

22 increasing the risk of heart arrhythmias and heart 

0109

 1 attacks. Thus, people who suffer from asthma, chronic 

 2 obstructive pulmonary disease, bronchitis, hardening of 

 3 the arteries have particular need to be protected from 

 4 ozone exposure. 

 5 EPA now propose to lower the primary 

 6 eight-hour standard to 60 and 70 parts per billion. PSR 

 7 supports the direction that this policy is going in, but 

 8 would like to raise two fundamental concerns. And 

 9 first, PSR believes that even the lowest level in this 

10 range is not fully adequate to protect vulnerable 

11 populations. Second, we believe that the time frame for 

12 meeting the proposed standards is too long. I will 

13 briefly explain why and also file a detailed written 

14 statement of our position. 

15 If we look at the very studies that EPA cites 

16 in preparing the proposed rule, PSR concludes that the 

17 proposed limits for ozone concentration are not 

18 sufficiently protective. EPA cites, and I will refer to 

19 Adams, Brown, that were conducted on healthy young 

20 people that were non-smokers and who had not previously 

21 lived in areas where ozone levels exceeded 0.09 parts 

22 per million. These subjects were exposed to ozone 

0110

 1 concentrations rating from below the proposed new 

 2 standard to well above it for over six hours during the 

 3 exercise. They were then subjected to basic tests of 

 4 pulmonary function, and their symptoms were inventoried. 

 5 The findings showed that at the lowest level, 

 6 EPA is now considering for its rule, that is to say at 

 7 0.06 ppm, subjects experienced statistically significant 

 8 differences, both in the objective test of pulmonary 

 9 function and the more subjective test of symptoms. In 

10 other words, exposure of 60 parts per million resulted 

11 in a measurable adverse impact on health, even among 

12 subjects in good health without prior ozone exposure. 

13 In PSR's view, that is not adequately protective of 

14 health. We are most concerned about the vulnerable 

15 populations. 

16 That large population includes children, 

17 especially children with asthma; adults with chronic 

18 respiratory or cardiovascular disease, and populations 

19 with genetic susceptibility to ozone. Based on these 

20 concerns, PSA urges the agency to reconsider the 

21 proposed lowered concentration limit and adopt a 

22 standard stringent enough to protect the health of all 

0111

 1 Americans, including the most vulnerable. 

 2 Secondly, I'd like to voice PSR's concern over 

 3 the proposed time frame for actual implementation. We 

 4 believe it is important to implement a new eight-hour 

 5 standard as soon as possible. Many Americans already 
file:///C|/...%20Documents/This%20Weeks%20Work/DIS%20349_Ozone%20Public%20Hearing/Ozone,%20meeting%20-%20Vol.%20I.txt[2/25/2010 9:23:09 AM]

 6 suffer from and die from respiratory diseases. This 

 7 includes 100,000 deaths annually, 4 million hospital 

 8 discharges, 14 million emergency room visits, 112 

 9 million visits to ambulatory care facilities, and 

10 perhaps as many as 700 million personal days where 

11 activity was restricted due to causes attributable to 

12 the lower respiratory system. 

13 Given the clear-cut cause and effect 

14 associations between ambient concentrations of ozone 

15 above the proposed regulatory standard delays in 

16 reducing ambient ozone concentrations will inevitably 

17 cause ozone-related morbidity and mortality. 

18 Will a rule impose some cost on some 

19 industries? It will. However those costs must be 

20 compared with the improvement in health that will follow 

21 implementation of a lower eight-hour ozone standard, as 

22 well as the cost-savings that will result as we reduce 

0112

 1 costly health care delivery and lost days of work. 

 2 Also, past experience with regulatory actions have shown 

 3 that industry's costs are often lower than they predict, 

 4 and time frames for compliance are met easily. 

 5 Therefore, PSR urges the Agency to make the 

 6 time frame as short as possible for implementation of 

 7 the proposed rule and associated standards. Every delay 

 8 affects the health of Americans. 

 9 MS. WOOD: Good afternoon, my name is Allison 

10 Wood, and I am a partner of Hunton Williams, LLP. I 

11 appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today on 

12 behalf of my client the Utility Air Regulatory Group or 

13 UARG as it is often referred to. 

14 UARG's purpose is to participate collectively 

15 on behalf of my client am regular go law tower and you 

16 arch is a ad hoc volunteer not for profit group of 

17 electric generating companies and organizations and five 

18 national trade organizations. UARG's purpose is to 

19 participate collectively on behalf of its members in 

20 EPA's rule makings and other proceedings under the Clean 

21 Air Act that affect the interest of electric generators 

22 and in litigation arising from those proceedings. 

0113

 1 UARG has participated in all aspects of the 

 2 review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for 

 3 ozone that led to EPA's promulgation of the 2008 ozone 

 4 standards that EPA is not reconsidering, and UARG is 

 5 also both a petitioner and an intervenor in litigation 

 6 currently pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

 7 D.C. Circuit Court challenging those standards. UARG 

 8 will be submitting more detailed written comments on 

 9 EPA's reconsideration proposal, and I will not be 

10 addressing all of the issues that UARG may have with 

11 EPA's proposal. 

12 When Administrator Jackson assumed leadership 

13 over EPA in January 2009, she pledged that all of EPA's 
file:///C|/...%20Documents/This%20Weeks%20Work/DIS%20349_Ozone%20Public%20Hearing/Ozone,%20meeting%20-%20Vol.%20I.txt[2/25/2010 9:23:09 AM]

14 efforts would be rooted in three fundamental values: 

15 Science-based policies and programs, adherence to the 

16 rule of law, and overwhelming transparency. 

17 The Administrator also explained that policy 

18 decisions should not be disguised as scientific 

19 findings. Unfortunately, this reconsideration process 

20 fails to meet these values. 

21 The Clean Air Act specifies that, in setting 

22 National Ambient Air Quality Standards, EPA's 

0114

 1 administrator is to exercise his or her judgment based 

 2 on air quality criteria that accurately reflect the 

 3 latest scientific knowledge in determining the levels of 

 4 an air quality standard that is requisite to protect 

 5 public health and welfare. 

 6 In 2008, EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson, 

 7 Administrator Jackson's predecessor, exercised his 

 8 judgement, based on air quality criteria that accurately 

 9 reflected the latest scientific knowledge to set the 

10 level for the primary and secondary National Ambient Air 

11 Quality Standards for ozone at 0.075 parts per million. 

12 This decision by Administrator Johnson was not made in 

13 haste, but occurred after a thorough and considered 

14 review, spanning several years of the previous ozone 

15 standards. Nor was Administrator Johnson's decision 

16 made in the waning days of the previous administration. 

17 Rather, it was made almost one year before the current 

18 administration took office. 

19 In September 2009, a year and a half after 

20 2008 ozone standards were finalized and more than seven 

21 months after Administrator Jackson began to lead EPA, 

22 the Agency announced its decision to reconsider the 2008 

0115

 1 ozone standards. No petition for reconsideration of 

 2 those standards was pending before EPA. EPA decided on 

 3 its own accord to undertake this reconsideration. 

 4 Despite Administrator Jackson's pledge that policy 

 5 decisions should not be disguised as findings, it is 

 6 difficult to escape the conclusion that this is exactly 

 7 what this reconsideration proceeding is. This action 

 8 violates the Administrator's three guiding principles. 

 9 First, this action violates the rule of law 

10 because EPA is short-cutting the procedures set out in 

11 the Clean Air Act for establishing National Ambient Air 

12 Quality Standards, which it cannot do. This does not 

13 mean that Administrator Jackson has no ability to review 

14 and possibly revise the 2008 ozone standards. Congress 

15 specified in the Clean Air Act the procedures by which 

16 an EPA administrator can review and modify National 

17 Ambient Air Quality Standards. Nothing prohibits 

18 Administrator Jackson from undertaking those procedures 

19 immediately. Nothing prohibits Administrator Jackson 

20 from reasonably expediting those procedures. 

21 Rather than proceed in the manner in which 
file:///C|/...%20Documents/This%20Weeks%20Work/DIS%20349_Ozone%20Public%20Hearing/Ozone,%20meeting%20-%20Vol.%20I.txt[2/25/2010 9:23:09 AM]

22 congress provided in the Clean Air Act, the 

0116

 1 Administrator has undertaken a review proceeding that 

 2 ignores these statutory principles. Most glaring is the 

 3 fact that on reconsideration, the Administrator will not 

 4 be relying on the latest scientific knowledge regarding 

 5 the public health and welfare effects of ozone as 

 6 sections 108 and 109 of the Clean Air Act direct. 

 7 Instead, the Administrator seeks to rely on the same air 

 8 quality criteria that Administrator Johnson relied on 

 9 when he issued the 2008 ozone standards. That air 

10 quality criteria is dated February 2006, four years ago, 

11 and that air quality criteria reviews only the science 

12 through 2004, with a few additional scientific studies 

13 from 2005 that EPA deemed important. Thus, EPA is 

14 proposing in this reconsideration proceeding to rely on 

15 scientific evidence that is more than five years old. 

16 This cannot possibly meet the statutory requirement that 

17 the Administrator rely on the latest scientific 

18 knowledge.

19 Second, this action does not comport with the 

20 Administrator's pledge to put science first. It is 

21 apparent that Administrator Jackson does not agree with 

22 the decision reached by Administrator Johnson in 

0117

 1 establishing the 2008 ozone standards, but rather than 

 2 engaging in a measured process to assess the current 

 3 state of the science and draw a new fact based 

 4 conclusion, the Administrator is reflexively 

 5 second-guessing the decision of her predecessor. In 

 6 short, this is a public policy disguised as a science 

 7 finding. To the extent Administrator Jackson believes 

 8 that the 2008 ozone standards must be reviewed to 

 9 determine whether they meet the Clean Air Act's 

10 requirement that National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

11 be set at the level that is requisite to protect public 

12 health and welfare and she does not want to follow the 

13 procedure for administrative review of those standards 

14 prescribed by Congress, that issue is now properly 

15 pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. 

16 Circuit. 

17 The Clean Air Act specifies that judicial 

18 review of the air quality standards is proper only in 

19 that court. It is now the responsibility of the court 

20 to determine whether the 2008 ozone standards are 

21 arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of Administrator 

22 Johnson discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with 

0118

 1 law. 

 2 In addition, the fact that Administrator 

 3 Johnson did not adopt a National Ambient Air Quality 

 4 Standard for ozone within the range recommended by his 

 5 science advisors, the CASAC does not justify this 

 6 reconsideration proceeding. The Clean Air Act does hot 
file:///C|/...%20Documents/This%20Weeks%20Work/DIS%20349_Ozone%20Public%20Hearing/Ozone,%20meeting%20-%20Vol.%20I.txt[2/25/2010 9:23:09 AM]

 7 require EPA's administration of CASAC. Rather, as the 

 8 statute itself and DC Circuit case law make clear, EPA's 

 9 administrator need only explain adequately his or her 

10 reason for not accepting CASAC's recommendations. The 

11 issue of whether Administrator Johnson adequately gave 

12 such an explanation when he issued the 2008 ozone 

13 standards is squarely before the DC Circuit.

14 Finally, EPA's reliance on a January 20, 2009 

15 memorandum from Rahm Emanuel, President Obama's Chief of 

16 Staff, to justify the reconsideration of the 2008 ozone 

17 standards is completely misplaced. That memorandum 

18 directed the heads of administrative agencies, one, not 

19 to send proposed or final regulations from the previous 

20 administration that had not yet been published to the 

21 Office of the Federal Register until they had been 

22 reviewed; two, to withdraw from the Office of the 

0119

 1 Federal Register proposed or final regulations from the 

 2 previous administration that had not yet been published 

 3 so they could also be reviewed; and, three, to consider 

 4 extending for 60 days the effective date of regulations 

 5 that had been published but had not yet gone into 

 6 effect. None of these situations applies to the 2008 

 7 ozone standards. The 2008 ozone standards were 

 8 published in the Federal Register on March 27, 2008, and 

 9 went into effect on May 27, 2008, almost eight months 

10 before Rahm Emanuel issued his memorandum.

11 At this time, UARG respectfully request that 

12 EPA adhere to the pledge that Administrator Jackson gave 

13 when she became Administrator to put science first and 

14 not to cloak policy decisions in the guise of scientific 

15 findings. 

16 The Administrator should follow the 

17 requirements of the Clean Air Act and undertake a full 

18 and comprehensive review of the 2008 ozone standards, a 

19 review that takes into account the latest scientific 

20 knowledge about ozone's effects on public health and 

21 welfare, and not one that relies on scientific 

22 information that is more than five years old. To the 

0120

 1 extent that Administrator Jackson believes that the 2008 

 2 ozone standards do not comply with the mandates of the 

 3 Clean Air Act, petitions for review raising such issues 

 4 have been filed with the DC Circuit and will properly be 

 5 decided there. 

 6 Only by starting a new and complete review of 

 7 the 2008 ozone standards can Administrator Jackson 

 8 ensure that the review of the 2008 standards is rooted 

 9 in the three fundamental values that she promised would 

10 support EA action. 

11 Thank you for your attention.

12 MS. RODRIGUEZ: I'd like to thank the speakers 

13 that have adhered to the five-minute limit. 

14 Any questions from the panel. 
file:///C|/...%20Documents/This%20Weeks%20Work/DIS%20349_Ozone%20Public%20Hearing/Ozone,%20meeting%20-%20Vol.%20I.txt[2/25/2010 9:23:09 AM]

15 We have two more speakers, Jared Snyder and 

16 Gary Ewart. 

17 MR. SNYDER: My name is Jared Snyder. I am 

18 the assistant commissioner for Climate Change and Energy 

19 of the New York State Department of Environmental 

20 Conservation. New York DEC strongly supports the 

21 conclusion reached by the Administrator that the current 

22 standard does not adequately protect the public health, 

0121

 1 and the standard should be strengthened to provide such 

 2 protection, especially for at-risks groups against a 

 3 broad array of adverse health effects. 

 4 These health effects include the increased 

 5 sensitivity of asthmatic children exposed to ozone 

 6 levels at and below the current standard and the 

 7 findings of significant respiratory decrements, 

 8 increased respiratory symptoms, pulmonary inflammation 

 9 and airway hyper responsiveness in chamber studies in 

10 healthy adults exposed to ozone at the level of the 

11 current standard. EPA's proposed range is consistent 

12 with the scientific evidence and keeping the unanimous 

13 recommendations of the CASAC and EPA's professional 

14 staff. 

15 I've heard Administrator Jackson emphasize 

16 that EPA will be guided by science. We are pleased if 

17 this proposal reflects that priority and we urge EPA to 

18 let science dictate where it sets the final primary 

19 standard. 

20 Furthermore, we recommend the working 

21 establishment of a separate secondary ozone standard of 

22 the W126 form accumulated over 24 hours and within the 

0122

 1 CASAC recommended range of 7 to 15 ppm hours that will 

 2 protect our forests, vegetation, and crops. 

 3 Protecting and enhancing New York's forests is 

 4 an important part of our mission, but New York 

 5 monitoring data leads us to the recommendation that a 

 6 24-hour W126 exposure index should be implemented 

 7 instead of a 12 hour. The other bound of the range 

 8 should be within he CASAC recommended 7 to 15 ppm hour 

 9 range. 

10 We also support EPA's proposal of an annual 

11 cumulative index to reflect year-to-year variations, 

12 rather than multi-year average of annual cumulative 

13 exposure that may dilute the adverse effects of a high 

14 ozone year. Adequate protection of New York's 

15 agricultural is essential for our public welfare and 

16 economy. 

17 We apply to the EPA's proposal to set the 

18 primary and secondary NAAQS at levels that provide 

19 requisite protection and public health in the 

20 environment. But getting the standard right is only 

21 half the job, with the more protective standard comes 

22 responsibility; responsibility that the public reaps the 
file:///C|/...%20Documents/This%20Weeks%20Work/DIS%20349_Ozone%20Public%20Hearing/Ozone,%20meeting%20-%20Vol.%20I.txt[2/25/2010 9:23:09 AM]

0123

 1 benefits of the standard quickly, and that 

 2 responsibility lies with both the states and EPA. 

 3 States like New York have already taken many steps to 

 4 reduce ozone pollution, but EPA will also need to take 

 5 aggressive action, including national control measures 

 6 to reduce the emission of ozone precursors, from cars 

 7 and trucks and power plants. EPA will also need to 

 8 vigorously address the regional transport of ozone and 

 9 its precursors. And EPA should develop and release 

10 guidance to the states on a timely basis to enable the 

11 states to move forward expeditiously. 

12 We are committed to ensure that the benefits 

13 of the standard are realized. In this regard we are 

14 concerned that EPA's decision to postpone the dates for 

15 designation of non-attainment under the current standard 

16 may be counterproductive. Designation of ozone 

17 non-attainment areas by this March as required by the 

18 Clean Air Act will commence the process of state and 

19 local air pollution agencies developing the ozone 

20 control programs such as transportation conformity for 

21 the many areas across the country that already do not 

22 meet the .075 NAAQS, let alone a lower standard. 

0124

 1 These designations will provide needed 

 2 protection for citizens living in areas with unhealthy 

 3 air quality, especially in those areas not previously 

 4 designated non-attainment, and they will start the 

 5 process of reducing emissions as needed to meet a new 

 6 stronger standard. 

 7 We recognize that EPA is seeking to reduce the 

 8 administrative burden of implementing a standard that 

 9 will soon be obsolete. We commend the EPA for planning 

10 to expedite designation under the new standards. But if 

11 this process is delayed, we will lose valuable time. So 

12 we urge EPA to take steps to ensure that designations 

13 are made quickly. 

14 DEC will be submitting more detailed comments 

15 into the docket. Thank you very much. 

16 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Before you start, I want to 

17 ask the audience, we still have a few slots available 

18 for speakers. If you are interested and have not 

19 registered, you may do so at the table outside. We will 

20 take a break at 12:30 for lunch. 

21 MR. EWART: My name is Gary Ewart. I'm the 

22 director of government relations for the American 

0125

 1 Thoracic Society. I'm here to present the views of the 

 2 American Thoracic Society, the proposed revisions to the 

 3 National Ambient Quality Standard for ozone. The 

 4 American Thoracic Society strongly supports EPA'S 

 5 revision and we strongly recommend the adopted standard 

 6 of 60 parts per billion. 

 7 The American Thoracic Society is a medical 
file:///C|/...%20Documents/This%20Weeks%20Work/DIS%20349_Ozone%20Public%20Hearing/Ozone,%20meeting%20-%20Vol.%20I.txt[2/25/2010 9:23:09 AM]

 8 professional society with over 15,000 members who 

 9 research, diagnose, treat, and cure respiratory 

10 diseases. As such, we are keenly interested in the 

11 effects the air pollution has on respiratory disease. 

12 The quality of the air we breathe plays an important 

13 role, both in terms of causing diease as well as 

14 exacerbating the existing disease. While there are many 

15 pollutants that play an important role in air pollution 

16 and respiratory health, there are few that have as big 

17 an impact as ozone. It is rare in life and in 

18 government that we get a second chance. So we're 

19 pleased through Court action and receptiveness through 

20 the current administrator that the EPA is reviewing the 

21 2007 decision for the ozone NAAQS. And, again, we 

22 strongly recommend EPA take full advantage of the second 

0126

 1 chance to issue a stricter NAAQS of 60 parts per 

 2 billion. 

 3 I will not attempt to recite the extensive 

 4 peer-review based literature that demonstrates that 

 5 ozone is bad for your health. I will quickly note, that 

 6 research show that ozone exposure leads to increased 

 7 hospitalizations, emergency room visits, decreased lung 

 8 function. And multi-city studies have shown that ozone 

 9 exposure increases mortality. 

10 I will leave this panel with a copy of an 

11 editorial that was published in 2007 in the American 

12 Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine that 

13 states the position in 2007 on the need for 60 parts per 

14 billion standard. 

15 I will also note for the panel that in the 

16 forthcoming addition of the Blue Journal or the American 

17 Journal of Respiratory Critical Care Medicine, a second 

18 editorial will be published that will make the case for 

19 a stricter standard. That will be published in the 

20 February 15th edition or March 1st, at the latest. I 

21 will also leave a copy of the public comments that were 

22 submitted in 2007 by a number of medical organizations 

0127

 1 all supporting the 60 parts per billion standard. 

 2 So in summary, the American Thoracic Society 

 3 strongly supports EPA's efforts to establish a stricter 

 4 standard at 60 parts per billion. I realize there are a 

 5 number of issues that I have left uncovered in these 

 6 comments, including the form and some monitoring issues, 

 7 which we will press in our formal written comments. 

 8 Please take advantage of this important second 

 9 chance and establish a stricter standard of 60 parts per 

10 billion. 

11 Thank you. 

12 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you. 

13 Any comments or questions from the panel? 

14 We have one more speaker, Eileen Levandoski.

15 MS. LEVANDOSKI: Good afternoon, my name is 
file:///C|/...%20Documents/This%20Weeks%20Work/DIS%20349_Ozone%20Public%20Hearing/Ozone,%20meeting%20-%20Vol.%20I.txt[2/25/2010 9:23:09 AM]

16 Eileen Levandoski. I am the organizer of the CR Club, 

17 and I live in Virginia Beach. 

18 I want to applaud your efforts to tighten the 

19 standards. I know from my area -- my area has recently 

20 been designated as non-attainment -- and I applaud your 

21 efforts on behalf of public health. But one of the 

22 added benefits that I really want to highlight is -- I 

0128

 1 hate to use the word force, but a different thinking, a 

 2 more aggressive thinking as part of our community as far 

 3 as trying to think harder about the clean air that they 

 4 need to either preserve, protect, or also to establish. 

 5 I know in our community, there's a lot of 

 6 discussion right now about mass transit, the high speed 

 7 rail and the light rail in our community. This would be 

 8 an added incentive towards initiating those things. We 

 9 also have a serious threat of, I think, 4,000 tons NOx 

10 conditions into our air from a coal plant that is 

11 proposed right now. This would give our legislators and 

12 policy makers in our area that much more cognizant of 

13 those possibilities to clean air and everything that 

14 they want to attain by discouraging this coal plant. 

15 Once again, I applaud your efforts.

16 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you. 

17 Any questions from the panel? 

18 (Lunch recess held.)

19 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Good afternoon, and thank you 

20 for attending the Environmental Protection Agency's 

21 public hearing on our proposal to set different National 

22 Ambient Air Quality Standards or NAAQS for ground-level 

0129

 1 ozone than those set in 2008. I recognize that many of 

 2 you have traveled quite a distance to be here, and I 

 3 appreciate your efforts. 

 4 My name is Rosalina Rodriguez, and I am the 

 5 associate director for the Health and Environmental 

 6 Impacts Division for EPA's Office of Air Quality 

 7 Planning and Standards. I will be chairing today's 

 8 hearing. Joining me on the panel are Lea Anderson of 

 9 EPA's Office of General Counsel, and David McKee and 

10 Vicki Sandiford of EPA's Office or Air Quality Planning 

11 and Standards. 

12 We are here today to listen to your comments 

13 on EPA's proposal to set different primary and secondary 

14 ozone standards. This hearing is an important 

15 opportunity for the public to comment on EPA's proposed 

16 rule. The panel members may answer questions that seek 

17 to clarify what we have proposed, but the purpose of 

18 this hearing is to listen to your comments and not to 

19 discuss or debate the proposal. 

20 Before we move to the comment period, I would 

21 like to briefly describe the proposed rule that is the 

22 subject of today's hearing. The proposed rule was 

0130
file:///C|/...%20Documents/This%20Weeks%20Work/DIS%20349_Ozone%20Public%20Hearing/Ozone,%20meeting%20-%20Vol.%20I.txt[2/25/2010 9:23:09 AM]

 1 published on the Federal Register on January 19, 2010. 

 2 Based on the review of the science on the impacts of 

 3 ozone and other photochemical oxidants, EPA is proposing 

 4 different primary and secondary ozone NAAQS than were 

 5 set in 2008 to protect public health as well as 

 6 vegetation and ecosystems. Specifically, EPA proposes 

 7 that the level of the eight-hour primary standard, which 

 8 was set in 2008 at 0.075 parts per million or ppm, 

 9 should instead be set at a level in the range of 0.060 

10 to 0.070 ppm. 

11 In addition, EPA proposes that the secondary 

12 standard which was set in 2008 to be identical to the 

13 primary standard should instead be a new cumulative 

14 seasonal standard with a specific form called W126, and 

15 with a level within the range of 7 to 15 ppm hours. 

16 Administrator intends to sign a notice of final 

17 rule-making by August 31st of 2010. 

18 Now let me turn to the comment portion of 

19 today's hearing. We will be preparing a written 

20 transcript of today's hearing. The transcripts will be 

21 available as part of the official record for each rule. 

22 We are also accepting written comments for the proposed 

0131

 1 rule until March 22nd, 2010. We have a handout 

 2 available at the registration area, the table outside of 

 3 those doors, with detailed information for submitting 

 4 written comments. 

 5 At this time, I would like to outline how 

 6 today's hearing will work. I will call the scheduled 

 7 speakers to the microphone. Please state your name and 

 8 your affiliation. It will help our court reporter if 

 9 you also spell your name. In order to be fair to 

10 everyone, we are asking that you limit your testimony to 

11 five minutes each and to remain at the microphone until 

12 both speakers have finished. After you finish your 

13 testimony, a panel member may ask clarifying questions. 

14 As I mentioned, we are transcribing today's 

15 hearing and each speaker's oral testimony will become 

16 part of the official record. Please be sure to give a 

17 copy of any written comments to our staff at the 

18 registration table outside. We will put the full text 

19 of your written comments into the docket for you. 

20 We have a timekeeping system consisting of 

21 green, yellow, and red lights. When you begin speaking, 

22 the green light will come on. You will have five 

0132

 1 minutes to speak. The yellow light will signal that you 

 2 have two minutes left to speak. We will ask that you 

 3 stop speaking when the red light comes on. We intend to 

 4 stay into the evening until everyone has had an 

 5 opportunity to comment. If you would like to testify 

 6 but haven't yet registered to do so, please sign up at 

 7 the registration table. For those who have already 

 8 registered to speak, we have tried to accommodate your 
file:///C|/...%20Documents/This%20Weeks%20Work/DIS%20349_Ozone%20Public%20Hearing/Ozone,%20meeting%20-%20Vol.%20I.txt[2/25/2010 9:23:09 AM]

 9 request for specific time frames. We ask for your 

10 patience as we proceed through the list. We may need to 

11 make some minor adjustments as the day progresses. I 

12 would like to thank you all again for participating 

13 today. Let's get started. 

14 We will call Linda Burchfiel and Anna Garcia 

15 to the table.

16 MS. BURCHFIEL: My name is Linda Burchfiel. I 

17 live in McLean, right across the border, and I am in 

18 good health and have strong lungs. I am here to 

19 encourage you to go with the .060 ppm, because the 

20 current standard is way too lax. On the code orange and 

21 red days, even people like me in good health and have 

22 strong lungs have to restrict our outside activities. 

0133

 1 And anything that requires deep breathing, like riding a 

 2 bike or even strenuous garden work make my lungs ache. 

 3 For people who don't have strong lungs, this can mean a 

 4 trip to the emergency room or worse. 

 5 Americans do have a right to breathe air that 

 6 does not damage their lungs. And that is why we have 

 7 EPA and Clean Air Act. So far this year the system is 

 8 working. You all have read over 1700 reports, you have 

 9 come up with a stronger standard, and now you are 

10 listening to the public comments. It is very important 

11 to all of us that the EPA be here to protect our health. 

12 We appreciate what you are doing. Just hope that you 

13 can maintain our health as a high priority above other 

14 considerations and follow the advice of the Clean Air 

15 Scientific Advisory Committee, the American Lung 

16 Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, and many 

17 other organizations. Strengthening it to 60 ppm will 

18 help millions of Americans breathe easier and live 

19 healthier. 

20 But repeated ozone exposure also damages the 

21 environment and can reduce tree growth, harm leaves, and 

22 increase susceptibility to disease. To protect trees 

0134

 1 and crops and people that make their living off of 

 2 tourism and agriculture, I urge you to set the secondary 

 3 standard at 7 ppm hours. I thank you, again, for the 

 4 opportunity to speak. I encourage you to tighten the 

 5 standards to 60 parts per billion. 

 6 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you. 

 7 MS. GARCIA: Good afternoon and thank you for 

 8 the opportunity to testify on the EPA January 19, 2010 

 9 proposed rule to revise the NAASQ. My name is Anna 

10 Garcia, and I am the executive director of the Ozone 

11 Transport Commission. OTC was created by congress under 

12 the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 to coordinate 

13 ground-level ozone pollution control planning in the 

14 Northeast and mid-Atlantic region of the U.S. 

15 OTC has been closely following the EPA's 

16 progress on setting new NAAQS for ozone, from its 
file:///C|/...%20Documents/This%20Weeks%20Work/DIS%20349_Ozone%20Public%20Hearing/Ozone,%20meeting%20-%20Vol.%20I.txt[2/25/2010 9:23:09 AM]

17 original proposal in 2007 through the recent 

18 reconsideration of the standards resulting in the 

19 January 19th proposed revision. OTC commends EPA on its 

20 decision to propose lower, more stringent primary and 

21 secondary standards that follow the recommendations of 

22 the CASAC and offer greater protection to our citizens 

0135

 1 and the environment that they rely upon. 

 2 As an ozone centric organization, OTC 

 3 understands deeply the important role that these 

 4 standards play in protecting public health and in 

 5 restoring our environmental and agricultural resources. 

 6 An important part of the OTC's mandate is a focus on 

 7 pollution that crosses political jurisdictions. This 

 8 transported pollution often travels hundreds of miles 

 9 from its original. Our analyses show that the proposed 

10 lower standards for ozone will amplify the need for 

11 regional and national measures to reduce the transport 

12 component of our ozone problem. 

13 The OTC states have implemented numerous local 

14 and regional measures that have decreased their 

15 emissions to meet the ozone standards, yet transported 

16 pollutants have downwind sources, including many outside 

17 the Ozone Transport Region, OTR, continue to contribute 

18 significant amounts of ozone and ozone precursors into 

19 the Northeast and prevent attainment in many areas. For 

20 example, OTC states have recorded polluted air blowing 

21 into the OTR that already exceeds the proposed primary 

22 and secondary ozone standards. 

0136

 1 In establishing the ozone NAAQS, OTC supports 

 2 EPA's decision to rely on the science represented in the 

 3 CASAC recommendations, for both the primary and 

 4 secondary standards. Specifically, the CASAC 

 5 recommendations for ozone indicated that to protect 

 6 public health with an adequate margin of safety and in 

 7 accordance with the latest scientific studies, the 

 8 primary standard would need to be within the range of 

 9 .060 to .070 ppm. 

10 In its review, the CASAC cited single-city and 

11 multi-city studies that show significant health impacts, 

12 including morbidity and mortality, from ozone 

13 concentrations much lower than the current standard. 

14 Recent clinical studies show adverse lung function 

15 impacts in individuals at ozone levels as low as .060 

16 ppm. OTC supports the work of the CASAC and applauds 

17 EPA for proposing to revise the primary and secondary 

18 NAAQS in accordance with their findings. 

19 As set forth in the Clean Air Act and affirmed 

20 in Whitman vs. American Trucking Association, Inc., the 

21 NAAQS is to be set at a level necessary to protect 

22 public health and welfare, with an adequate margin of 

0137

 1 safety and without consideration of economic impacts. A 
file:///C|/...%20Documents/This%20Weeks%20Work/DIS%20349_Ozone%20Public%20Hearing/Ozone,%20meeting%20-%20Vol.%20I.txt[2/25/2010 9:23:09 AM]

 2 study conducted by OTC and the Northeast states for 

 3 NESCAUM estimated that a primary standard within the 

 4 CASAC proposed range could save between 25 and 250 lives 

 5 in the OTC region annually. This would double the 

 6 number of lives saved in the OTC region. 

 7 EPA's updated regulatory impact analysis shows 

 8 that the benefits nationally would be even greater, 

 9 totaling as much as 100 million per year in 2020.

10 There are several practical factors to 

11 consider as EPA looks toward implementation of these 

12 proposed new standards. It is important that this 

13 decision not create duplicative or unnecessary 

14 requirements for state regulators, while also ensuring 

15 that air quality is protected during transition from the 

16 1997 and 2008 ozone NAAQS to the proposed more stringent 

17 standards. 

18 EPA has noted that the 2008 and 1997 

19 eight-hour ozone standards remain in place until epa 

20 finalizes any new standards. In addition, the 

21 Administrator proposes an accelerated implementation 

22 schedule for any new standards, and that deadline for 

0138

 1 designations for the 2008 ozone standard will be 

 2 deferred until 2011. 

 3 OTC has advised EPA on several options for 

 4 additional reduction strategies that are available from 

 5 several source categories. Among these are 

 6 cost-effective ozone precursor emissions reductions from 

 7 several stationary, mobile, and area source categories. 

 8 Our analysis has shown that more stringent and timely 

 9 emission limits, fuel standards, on a national basis 

10 would yield significant air quality benefits in our 

11 region.

12 Protecting the public health by relying on 

13 science and innovation demands that reductions in ozone 

14 and its precursors be a top priority for EPA and our 

15 states. With nearly two decades of experience in 

16 dealing with this issue, the OTC has ideas and 

17 suggestions on how to address meeting a tighter ozone 

18 standard which we will be glad to share as 

19 implementation guidance is developed once new standards 

20 are adopted. This will be accomplished through a close 

21 partnership between the states and federal government, 

22 since there are cost-effective controls available to the 

0139

 1 federal agencies to effectuate that individual states 

 2 are precluded from undertaking by law or for other 

 3 reasons.

 4 We stand ready to work with you to achieve 

 5 healthful air as expeditiously as possible. Thank you 

 6 for the opportunity to provide OTC's testimony.

 7 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Does the panel have any 

 8 questions? 

 9 I'd like to call Charlotte Collins and Tony 
file:///C|/...%20Documents/This%20Weeks%20Work/DIS%20349_Ozone%20Public%20Hearing/Ozone,%20meeting%20-%20Vol.%20I.txt[2/25/2010 9:23:09 AM]

10 DeLucia. 

11 MS. COLLINS: Good afternoon, my name is 

12 Charlotte Collins. I am here to deliver a statement 

13 from the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America. The 

14 Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America was founded in 

15 1953 and is the leading national patient consumer 

16 organization helping people with asthma and allergic 

17 diseases through education, advocacy, and research. 

18 AAFA is dedicated to improving the quality of life for 

19 people with asthma and allergies. 

20 On behalf of the 60 million Americans who live 

21 with asthma and allergies, I am here to thank you for 

22 your leadership and express AAFA's support for 

0140

 1 strengthening air quality standards for ground-level 

 2 ozone. AAFA supports finalizing EPA's recommended 

 3 standard for ground-level ozone as announced January 7, 

 4 2010. 

 5 AAFA is enthusiastic about EPA's proposed 

 6 action because the recommended levels will help to 

 7 prevent adverse effects to people with asthma and other 

 8 respiratory problems. According to this Agency's 

 9 scientists, the new recommended range for the primary 

10 ground-level ozone standard avoids 23,000 to 58,000 

11 cases of aggravated asthma over the current standard. 

12 We are particularly pleased because after our 

13 meeting with the former EPA administrator in 2008, the 

14 Agency failed to issue strong recommendations consistent 

15 with those made by EPA's own scientific advisors. At 

16 that time, AAFA joined the American Lung Association, 

17 the American Public Health Association, the American 

18 Thoracic Society, and other public health organizations 

19 who are concerned about lung health to deliver the 

20 message that EPA should finalize a standard supported by 

21 the science and protective of the nation's health. 

22 We support a much tighter National Air Quality 

0141

 1 Standard of 60 parts per billion to protect the health 

 2 of those most, at risk-children, teens, seniors, and 

 3 people with chronic lung diseases, like asthma.

 4 Thank you. 

 5 MR. DELUCIA: For the record, my name is 

 6 Anthony DeLucia. I reside in Johnson City, Tennessee, 

 7 where I am employed as part of the faculty of Tennessee 

 8 College of Medicine. Some of my biographical 

 9 information I will leave out in the interest of time. 

10 First of all, I want to acknowledge our 

11 success employing end of tailpipe and end smoke stack 

12 solutions in dealing with a very difficult problem. 

13 Make no mistake, the former were obligatory in 

14 parts of the country, such as my native Southern 

15 California, if they were to remain inhabitable. Fast 

16 growing, sprawling, and even more in places, according 

17 to the reputable climate scientists, historical scenes 
file:///C|/...%20Documents/This%20Weeks%20Work/DIS%20349_Ozone%20Public%20Hearing/Ozone,%20meeting%20-%20Vol.%20I.txt[2/25/2010 9:23:09 AM]

18 as well as projecting in the future take on additional 

19 challenges when it comes to managing the ozone problems. 

20 For these reasons, I believe that air 

21 pollution, including deadly ozone and fine particulates 

22 will only threaten the quality of life in the tri-city 

0142

 1 region, in Tennessee, Virginia, where I live, and 

 2 throughout the country. 

 3 I am no doctor doom as in the comic villain in 

 4 the 1980s movie Who Framed Roger Rabbit about the 

 5 sinister plot to build freeways in Los Angeles after the 

 6 trollies. 

 7 Although the last 32 years, I lived in the 

 8 southeast, for the other nearly half of my life I lived 

 9 in California, home of the red car. Aside from somewhat 

10 vague recollections of breathing discomfort at the end 

11 of long summer days of play when growing up as a child 

12 in Riverside, I can still recount my earlier experience 

13 with ozone as an avid runner, both in high school and 

14 nearby U.S. Riverside. 

15 To give you an idea of how bad the overall air 

16 quality was then, during the peak afternoon hours, we 

17 could not see the box spring mountains approximately 1 

18 mile behind campus many days during the ozone season. 

19 I somehow survived my childhood and made it to 

20 cleaner air. As I was back then -- children are the 

21 most vulnerable around ozone since they play vigorously 

22 often ignoring their parent's advice to come inside, 

0143

 1 breathe more per unit body weight, and have developing 

 2 lungs. 

 3 We face a cruel paradox with ramped obesity as 

 4 a complicating factor in asthma, sleep disorder 

 5 breathing, and sensitivity to ozone pollution; but, yet, 

 6 both children and adults are warned not to exercise 

 7 outdoors when the levels of ozone are too high. I 

 8 follow such advice personally as a cyclist, including 

 9 using the bicycle for utilitarian purposes rather than 

10 recreation. I have to monitor the summer ozone levels 

11 in Tennessee with now the risk factors of weight, age, 

12 and several comorbid conditions working against me. 

13 Taking into consideration the best interest of 

14 at least two vulnerable populations, children and 

15 seniors who should be exercising daily outdoors, 

16 regardless of the time of day, to make sure it fits into 

17 their lifestyles. I support a low standard, as low as 

18 .06 to .065 ppm for eight hours based on a three-year 

19 average. 

20 Some have labeled ozone the intractable air 

21 pollution problem. I hope that need not be the case. 

22 We should not have blinders on or handcuff ourselves 

0144

 1 when addressing important issues such as setting an 

 2 ozone standard, ignoring the poor public health being 
file:///C|/...%20Documents/This%20Weeks%20Work/DIS%20349_Ozone%20Public%20Hearing/Ozone,%20meeting%20-%20Vol.%20I.txt[2/25/2010 9:23:09 AM]

 3 contributed as some of the most important negatives in 

 4 the equation are left undressed. 

 5 I, thus, am advocating more than fuels, 

 6 engines, and fines as we pursue tactics resoundly 

 7 embraced in the smart growth movement. We need to 

 8 implement through the genius of our urban planners, 

 9 especially those preaching biodensity, mixed use, and 

10 new urbanism, for example, what a 21st century city in 

11 the United States might look like. Bear in mind, the 

12 federal government is but one part. We can look at the 

13 states and local government to be supportive of these 

14 strategies as well. 

15 Later this week, many of your strongest 

16 supporters will be in Seattle. We will be discussing 

17 the issues I have outlined here. Please let us help. 

18 Thank you. 

19 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you. 

20 Any questions from the panel? 

21 MR. MCKEE: I would like to point out that I'm 

22 surprised that Tony didn't mention about the article 

0145

 1 that he co-authored or lead to author to help EPA 

 2 prevent from relaxing the standard to .16 back in 1979. 

 3 I thought you should have mentioned that. 

 4 MR. DELUCIA: It's in here. 

 5 Again, a few seconds to spare, but we didn't 

 6 know what we were doing. You certainly don't want to 

 7 toot your own horn. We were funded to design bike ways, 

 8 study the environmental characteristics, such as heat, 

 9 such as elevation. The air pollution was just sort of 

10 something thrown in because I had done my doctoral work 

11 studying the toxicological effects of ozone on animals. 

12 And Bill Adams, who I joined up with, 

13 recognized that we might be able to come up with 

14 something. We came up with this very inexpensive 

15 system, and we were the first one to go with heavy 

16 exercise, continuous exercise, ranging from -- not just 

17 heavy -- 25 percent of your oxygen uptake capacity up to 

18 65 percent which gets into the kinds of things that you 

19 do recreationally, occupationally. And it totally 

20 unmasked the latency of those low level ozone exposures 

21 to bring up pulmonary function changes and symptomatolgy 

22 that everybody else was missing. And it was kind of 

0146

 1 rewarding to find out that, yes, what we were seeing 

 2 with the animals would bear out in human studies, if we 

 3 brought in something that the real world forces do all 

 4 of the time. 

 5 That's why I addressed the dilemma of obesity. 

 6 MS. RODRIGUEZ: I'd like to call Kevin Stewart 

 7 and Liz deGraffenreid.

 8 Good afternoon. I thank the panel for your 

 9 work here today. I serve as a director of environmental 

10 health for the American Lung Association of the 
file:///C|/...%20Documents/This%20Weeks%20Work/DIS%20349_Ozone%20Public%20Hearing/Ozone,%20meeting%20-%20Vol.%20I.txt[2/25/2010 9:23:09 AM]

11 mid-Atlantic. I am representing not only the nearly 3 

12 million people in our four-state service area who suffer 

13 from chronic lung disease, but also the tens of millions 

14 more who desire to breathe clean air and to protect 

15 their good health. 

16 Our oldest predecessor agency was founded in 

17 1892 to fight tuberculosis. We are now dedicated to our 

18 broader mission of improving lung health and preventing 

19 lung disease. We have been fighting for relief from 

20 ambient air pollution since the middle of the last 

21 century.

22 As you may recall, we were among many who 

0147

 1 offered testimony to this same docket over two years 

 2 ago. At that time we found the science indicated that 

 3 the EPA should adopt the most protective primary 

 4 standard for ozone air pollution within the range that 

 5 the CASAC had recommended, and we advocated that the 

 6 Agency Administrator choose just such a standard and 

 7 base attainment on the strongest form under 

 8 consideration. 

 9 Well, here we are again. Nothing has changed. 

10 If anything has changed, it has been that the scientific 

11 demonstration of the harmfulness of ozone exposure at 

12 levels well below the current 75 parts per billion 

13 standard has grown even stronger over the intervening 

14 years.

15 In our service territory, we estimate that at 

16 least 80 percent of our population lives in over 50 

17 counties where ozone occurs at levels of 5 ppb below the 

18 weak standard now being reconsidered. Yet even these 

19 are not the smallest exposures that science convincingly 

20 shows produce significant adverse health responses. 

21 This means that populations at risk in these four states 

22 and known to be living with such ozone levels include at 

0148

 1 least the following: 5.4 million infants, children and 

 2 teens under 18; 3.4 million persons aged 65 and above; 

 3 500,000 children with asthma; 1.6 million adults with 

 4 asthma; 640,000 persons with chronic bronchitis; 330,000 

 5 persons with emphysema.

 6 EPA has taken testimony not only today, but 

 7 also in the summer of 2007, and if it hasn't done so 

 8 yet, it should review that record and consider the 

 9 testimony given then as part of today's record as well. 

10 EPA already knows about the findings of the 

11 world's foremost experts on the science pertaining to 

12 the health effects of ozone pollution that prove the 

13 standard should be made more stringent than what we have 

14 today.

15 EPA has heard from public officials who are 

16 concerned that if the agency chooses a weak standard, 

17 this will continue to hold back their cities, counties, 

18 and states from attaining the kind of air quality they 
file:///C|/...%20Documents/This%20Weeks%20Work/DIS%20349_Ozone%20Public%20Hearing/Ozone,%20meeting%20-%20Vol.%20I.txt[2/25/2010 9:23:09 AM]

19 know their citizens deserve.

20 EPA has heard from physicians, nurses, and 

21 other heath care providers who are confronted with the 

22 daily reality of how air pollution's effects show up in 

0149

 1 their offices, in the emergency departments in their 

 2 hospitals.

 3 And, last, but not least, the EPA has heard 

 4 from real people, family members, neighbors, coworkers, 

 5 friends, who have explained what it is like to live with 

 6 air pollution. What it does to their health, what it 

 7 does to their quality of life, how, even on nominally 

 8 moderate days, the levels of air pollution deemed 

 9 acceptable still adversely affect them.

10 We commend the EPA for reconsidering the ozone 

11 standard, and for finally acknowledging and acting in 

12 concert with the ozone review panel of the CASAC 

13 unanimous recommendation, a position with which 

14 nationally and internationally respected scientists and 

15 physicians have agreed, that the primary ozone standard 

16 should be set within the range between 60 and 70 ppb.

17 Our recommendation to the EPA remains 

18 unchanged. Let the Agency live up to its founding 

19 principles. Carryout your public trust to protect the 

20 public health. First, recognize the unimpeded truth of 

21 what the science shows. Then, follow the law by issuing 

22 standards that protect public health and that provide a 

0150

 1 real margin of safety and that don't lie to people about 

 2 the quality of the air they breathe. 

 3 Finally, have the guts to stand up and defend 

 4 and implement and enforce those standards. Once again, 

 5 I assure you, you won't be alone. 

 6 MS. DEGRAFFENREID: Good afternoon, my name is 

 7 Liz deGraffenreid, and I am here today representing the 

 8 Annapolis Center for Science based public policy. The 

 9 Annapolis Center is a non-profit educational 

10 organization that promotes the use of peer-reviewed 

11 science in public policy decision making. Its board of 

12 directors is comprised of highly respected doctors and 

13 scientists including a former member of CASAC and three 

14 former surgeon generals. They have devoted their 

15 careers to the protection of public health, and I assure 

16 you that they recognize the great need for clean air for 

17 all of us to breathe. 

18 In 2007, during the last NAAQS review cycle of 

19 ground-level ozone, the Annapolis Center published a 

20 report titled The Science and Health Effects of 

21 ground-level Ozone. Because EPA is basing the 

22 reconsideration on the scientific record of the last 

0151

 1 review, my commitments will be based upon the findings 

 2 of this report.

 3 Since the 1997 review of the NAAQS for ozone, 
file:///C|/...%20Documents/This%20Weeks%20Work/DIS%20349_Ozone%20Public%20Hearing/Ozone,%20meeting%20-%20Vol.%20I.txt[2/25/2010 9:23:09 AM]

 4 there have been limited, if any, developments in 

 5 epidemiology, toxicology, or the background science that 

 6 would support a revision of the ozone standards to 

 7 anything lower than 0.08 ppm. 

 8 CASAC'S recommendations for the 2008 ozone 

 9 standard were grounded on estimates of health risk from 

10 exposures to concentration of ambient ozone. However, 

11 the estimates were based on an incomplete assessment 

12 based on the uncontrollable background-levels of ozone. 

13 These background-levels provide no room for human 

14 activities. They assume zero emissions, from not only 

15 agricultural activities, but also from our North 

16 American neighbors' man made sources. EPA's assumptions 

17 result not only in an overstatement of health risks, but 

18 an overstatement of many states' abilities to develop 

19 practical emission reduction plans to comply with 

20 stricter standards. For the first time, EPA placed 

21 critical policy decisions on a foundation of model 

22 calculations rather than using actual monitoring data. 

0152

 1 The model EPA used is unrealistic and severely limited 

 2 in its accuracy. 

 3 The proposed changes to the ozone standards 

 4 overestimate the magnitude and consistency of the 

 5 results of acute epidemiologic studies, especially for 

 6 emergency room visits, and hospital admissions for 

 7 asthma and other respiratory disorders, school absences 

 8 and mortality. In addition, EPA overstates the 

 9 likelihood of causability [sic] particularly for the 

10 more serious endpoints, and at lower ozone 

11 concentrations.

12 Based on current ozone levels, an eight-hour standard 

13 set as low as 0.060 ppm would put virtually the entire 

14 country out of attainment. This would have essentially 

15 no room for ozone from human habitation. A standard set 

16 at 0.070 ppm would put most of the country out of 

17 attainment, including many sites where there are no 

18 obvious man-made sources. 

19 With respect to the primary standard, I ask 

20 you to consider the following points: Ozone is a 

21 respiratory irritant but the risk of respiratory efforts 

22 actually is lower than thought in 1997. An 

0153

 1 inappropriate computer model used to estimate the 

 2 uncontrollable background of ozone should not be relied 

 3 upon to make public policy. 

 4 The last point I will make on primary 

 5 standards is this: In its last reviews EPA 

 6 misinterpreted the Adams 2006 clinical study, the only 

 7 controlled study used to support making the existing 

 8 primary standard more stringent. In fact, by 

 9 reanalyzing the data with a different statistical test 

10 in certain regards EPA drew completely different 

11 conclusions from those of the study's author, including 
file:///C|/...%20Documents/This%20Weeks%20Work/DIS%20349_Ozone%20Public%20Hearing/Ozone,%20meeting%20-%20Vol.%20I.txt[2/25/2010 9:23:09 AM]

12 a biologically implausible range of results, and 

13 neglected to establish cause and effect. It is also 

14 important to note, in regards to this study, that there 

15 is no medically significant effect demonstrated negating 

16 its meaning, with regard to public health.

17 With respect to the secondary ozone standard, 

18 a unique seasonal standard to protect vegetation does 

19 not sufficiently address the uncertainties and 

20 limitations of such a standard. Before setting a 

21 standard, please consider the lack of monitoring data at 

22 vegetation height in rural areas and extremes of 

0154

 1 background overlap with the ranges being considered. It 

 2 is important to note that the current estimates of crop 

 3 loss from ozone are substantially lower than those of 

 4 past reviews.

 5 Since no new data has been presented since the 

 6 1997 review to reduce the uncertainties and limitations 

 7 of a cumulative seasonal standard, and because of the 

 8 lack of developments in epidemiology, toxicology or the 

 9 background science, there is no compelling reason for 

10 the Annapolis Center to support a revision of the ozone 

11 standards.

12 The Annapolis Center will be submitting 

13 written comments to further explain its strong 

14 resistance to more stringent ozone standards. I ask 

15 that you make your decision using sound science. 

16 Standards based on emotion and flawed review processes 

17 serve no one and have unforeseen implications and 

18 staggering costs. Thank you for your time. 

19 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you. 

20 Any questions from the panel? 

21 Let's call Elizabeth Chimento.

22 MS. CHIMENTO: My name is Elizabeth Chimento. 

0155

 1 I am a private citizen. I have no affiliation. With 

 2 any group, but I come to you to support this change in 

 3 the ozone standard simply because it's so important to 

 4 protect public health. I have been very much involved 

 5 in trying to bring the Potomac generating station into 

 6 compliance. This is an old power plant in Alexandria, 

 7 Virginia, not ten minutes from here. 

 8 The first unit was built in 1941. And this 

 9 plant has caused a number of problems over the years. 

10 In 2001, I and another neighbor decided to go to the 

11 plant because we had residue all over our windows and 

12 cars. The plant is the only industrial facility in 

13 this very urbanized high density section of Alexandria. 

14 We worked hard with the plant to come up with a 

15 resolution. But the plant told us they were 

16 responsible for nothing, except what was on the plant 

17 grounds. This event began in 2001. We are still very 

18 much involved in this fight. What we finally realized, 

19 and we base all of our work on science, was that this 
file:///C|/...%20Documents/This%20Weeks%20Work/DIS%20349_Ozone%20Public%20Hearing/Ozone,%20meeting%20-%20Vol.%20I.txt[2/25/2010 9:23:09 AM]

20 plant had an extreme of downwash. 

21 For those who are laymen here -- and I am one 

22 myself -- that means that dispersion of the pollutants 

0156

 1 were being blocked, and instead of them being dispersed 

 2 into the atmosphere, they were coming right down into 

 3 the population in very extreme quantities. The 

 4 neighbors got together and we spent a thousand dollars 

 5 to get a screening downwash study done for sulfur 

 6 dioxide, the pollutant we thought probably was the major 

 7 one. That study proved that this plant had a very bad 

 8 problem. 

 9 From that time on, the Department of 

10 Environmental Quality in Virginia and the City of 

11 Alexandria went into a very deep study. The first thing 

12 was that was done was that the plant was requested to do 

13 a complete downwash study. You cannot imagine the 

14 complexity, nor the frustration of getting a decent 

15 protocol established for a downwash study. Of the 

16 plant wanted the flag post to be put in the middle of 

17 the Potomac River. That is how ridiculous it got. At 

18 any rate, it was finally found that this plant was 

19 exceeding all criteria pollutant, from 5 to 15 times the 

20 standard. Here we are, people living very, very close 

21 to the plant. The dispersion is not proper. We are 

22 getting this very concentrate particles on us. 

0157

 1 We faulted DEQ for not being more observant. 

 2 We faulted the City initially for not being protective. 

 3 But in the end, the City was our ali, and we based all 

 4 of our work on science. We were particularly concerned 

 5 about smaller particle pollution, because at that time, 

 6 the studies were being done to show that they were 

 7 probably the most hazardous pollutants because they are 

 8 ingested directly into the lungs, and I'm sure you know 

 9 all of this. 

10 We have since went to the State Air Pollution 

11 Control Board. The State Air Pollution Control Board 

12 tried to get proper evaluation done, and a resolution, 

13 but it was a very political situation within the State, 

14 and there was a law jam. We did not know why the Board, 

15 which had eminent authority in this case, they their 

16 directives were not being followed by the state. So 

17 very fortunately, back in 2008, a member of the State 

18 Air Board, who previously worked at the EPA volunteered 

19 to negotiate a settlement between the City and the plant 

20 so that we could get something done, and that took us 

21 out of the State's political machinery. That resolution 

22 was signed, and the plant had to do a $30 million stack 

0158

 1 merge, which has been completed, but then they have to 

 2 add $35 million more for pollution controls. That 

 3 particular expenditure had been divided in the two 

 4 phases. 
file:///C|/...%20Documents/This%20Weeks%20Work/DIS%20349_Ozone%20Public%20Hearing/Ozone,%20meeting%20-%20Vol.%20I.txt[2/25/2010 9:23:09 AM]

 5 Phase one is for dust around the site; 

 6 $2 million allocated for that. That recommendation is 

 7 currently before the State Department of Environmental 

 8 Quality for them to sign off on it. If they do sign 

 9 off on it, and we expect they will, we will start those 

10 controls. But clearly the most important controls are 

11 phase two, in which $32 million will be expended. We 

12 are hoping to get bag houses on plant. Basically all we 

13 have is ESP, and this is not a very sufficient system 

14 for controlling the pollutants. 

15 Having gone through this now for many, many 

16 years, I'm a firm believer that we in the public have to 

17 be very responsible for trying to protect public health. 

18 We cannot expect the government to do so. Because in 

19 this case the government did not do anything. 

20 We were very happy that the City of Alexandria 

21 joined our case once the scientific evidence was such 

22 that something had to be done. And so as we prod 

0159

 1 through, the continuing events of getting these 

 2 pollution controls on this very old, old plant, we also 

 3 look in every direction to make sure that other 

 4 pollutants are being kept to the lowest level possible 

 5 to protect public health. We know now we are talking 

 6 about NO2 and the smog. We also know that we live in a 

 7 non attainment zone, and currently in the State of 

 8 Virginia right now, in the general assembly, there is a 

 9 law that has been challenged by industry and is being 

10 processed now as a new bill. 

11 The State Air Board has the ability in this 

12 state to prohibit electric generating facilities in a 

13 non-attainment area from buying or selling pollution 

14 credits. Now, industry has come forward now, and they 

15 want to cut out that power of the State Air Board. What 

16 that will mean for us is that credits from this other 

17 plants right here in Maryland. We have already have too 

18 much pollution. We are a plant where we are directly 

19 effective right in the neighborhood by all this. And 

20 if the industry gets its way in the state, then what we 

21 will have is even more pollution in and an area where 

22 we've already seen the pollution be way behind 

0160

 1 standards. 

 2 So I thank you for your time. I implore you 

 3 to please consider reducing the standard to 60 parts per 

 4 billion. I also know, and you know, that for a small 

 5 particulate matter that the scientific community has 

 6 said that there is no level that is safe, and we would 

 7 like to see a reduction in that. 

 8 Thank you so much for your time and your 

 9 patience. 

10 MS. RODRIGUEZ: If anybody would like to 

11 present your comments and speak in person you can sign 

12 up at the table and we will be happy to have you come 
file:///C|/...%20Documents/This%20Weeks%20Work/DIS%20349_Ozone%20Public%20Hearing/Ozone,%20meeting%20-%20Vol.%20I.txt[2/25/2010 9:23:09 AM]

13 and present your views. Right now, we don't have any 

14 speakers signed up for a few hours.

15 (Pause in the proceedings.)

16 MS. RODRIGUEZ: We have Norris McDonald. 

17 MR. MCDONALD: My name is Norris McDonald, 

18 and I am the founder and president of the Center for 

19 Environment Commerce and Energy Center. The Center for 

20 Environment Commerce And Energy, founded in 1985, is an 

21 environmental organization dedicated to protecting the 

22 environment enhancing human, animal, and plant 

0161

 1 ecologies, promoting the efficient use of natural 

 2 resources and expanding participation in the 

 3 environmental movement. 

 4 The Center supports this proposal by the U.Sl 

 5 EPA to se the eight-hour primary ozone standard to 

 6 protect public health at a level between 0.060 and 0.070 

 7 parts per million measured over eight hours. EPA is 

 8 also proposing to set a separate seasonal secondary 

 9 standard to protect the environment, especially plants 

10 and trees. We also support the accelerated schedule for 

11 designating areas for the primary ozone and other 

12 implementation time frames and measures.

13 As a chronic asthmatic with a history of acute 

14 attacks, I am personally invested in this proposal to 

15 strengthen the Nation's air quality standards for 

16 ground-level ozone smog. I was incubated for four days 

17 in an intensive care unit due to a smog-induced asthma 

18 attack in July 1991. I was incubated again for four 

19 days in 1996 with another smog and toxic chemical 

20 induced asthma attack. There were numerous visits to 

21 the emergency room during the past two decades. 

22 Exposure to smog clearly increased my risk of a 

0162

 1 premature death and ultimately was a primary component 

 2 in turning me into a chronic asthmatic. Clearly, the 

 3 earlier standards were not sufficient to protect my 

 4 health.

 5 This improved standard will reduce medical 

 6 costs, reduce insurance premiums, and prevent citizens 

 7 from being refused insurance. As a chronic asthmatic 

 8 with acute attacks, I have to take an asthma pill every 

 9 day. I have taken a pill every day since 1991. After I 

10 lost my insurance in the late 1990s, I have been refused 

11 insurance due to having a preexisting condition. This 

12 new standard will serve in helping to prevent citizens 

13 from becoming chronic asthmatics and from becoming 

14 vulnerable to premature death due to not having health 

15 insurance. 

16 The Center has a tighter standard for 

17 determining smog non-attainment than EPA. Our standard 

18 is, if you can see the air, it's not healthy to breathe. 

19 The EPA proposal moves us in the direction of assuring 

20 that we cannot see the air we breathe. Thus, we support 
file:///C|/...%20Documents/This%20Weeks%20Work/DIS%20349_Ozone%20Public%20Hearing/Ozone,%20meeting%20-%20Vol.%20I.txt[2/25/2010 9:23:09 AM]

21 reconsideration of the identical primary and secondary 

22 ozone standards that were set at 0.075ppm in 2008. 

0163

 1 Moreover, unlike the 2008 ozone standards, which were 

 2 not as protective as recommended by EPA's Science 

 3 Advisory Panel, CASAC's proposed standards are 

 4 consistent with CASAC's recommendations.

 5 We are deeply concerned about the damages to 

 6 sensitive plants by repeated seasonal exposure to ozone. 

 7 Our concern is for trees in suburban areas, urban parks, 

 8 and protected wilderness areas, including black cherry, 

 9 quaking aspen, ponderosa pine, and cottonwood. We are 

10 also concerned about the potential threat to commodity 

11 crops.

12 We are particularly concerned about the health 

13 of children. There is no protection from smog when 

14 children are outside during the summer months. This 

15 proposed tightening of air quality standards will serve 

16 as additional protection for children during the smog 

17 season.

18 Finally, the Center believes the complementary 

19 ozone air quality monitoring network design requirements 

20 will enhance these regulations if they are finalized and 

21 implemented.

22 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you. 

0164

 1 Any questions from the panel? 

 2 We will wait for the next speaker. 

 3 (Pause in the proceedings.)

 4 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Good afternoon, and thank you 

 5 for attending the Environmental Protection Agency's 

 6 public hearing on our proposal to set different National 

 7 Ambient Air Quality Standards or NAAQS for ground-level 

 8 ozone than those set in 2008. I recognize that many of 

 9 you have traveled quite a distance to be here, and I 

10 appreciate your efforts. 

11 My name is Rosalina Rodriguez, and I am the 

12 associate director for the Health and Environmental 

13 Impacts Division for EPA's Office of Air Quality 

14 Planning and Standards. I will be chairing today's 

15 hearing. Joining me on the panel are Lea Anderson of 

16 EPA's Office of General Counsel, and David McKee and 

17 Vicki Sandiford of EPA's Office or Air Quality Planning 

18 and Standards. 

19 We are here today to listen to your comments 

20 on EPA's proposal to set different primary and secondary 

21 ozone standards. This hearing is an important 

22 opportunity for the public to comment on EPA's proposed 

0165

 1 rule. The panel members may answer questions that seek 

 2 to clarify what we have proposed, but the purpose of 

 3 this hearing is to listen to your comments and not to 

 4 discuss or debate the proposal. 

 5 Before we move to the comment period, I would 
file:///C|/...%20Documents/This%20Weeks%20Work/DIS%20349_Ozone%20Public%20Hearing/Ozone,%20meeting%20-%20Vol.%20I.txt[2/25/2010 9:23:09 AM]

 6 like to briefly describe the proposed rule that is the 

 7 subject of today's hearing. The proposed rule was 

 8 published on the Federal Register on January 19, 2010. 

 9 Based on the review of the science on the impacts of 

10 ozone and other photochemical oxidants, EPA is proposing 

11 different primary and secondary ozone NAAQS than were 

12 set in 2008 to protect public health as well as 

13 vegetation and ecosystems. Specifically, EPA proposes 

14 that the level of the eight-hour primary standard, which 

15 was set in 2008 at 0.075 parts per million or ppm, 

16 should instead be set at a level in the range of 0.060 

17 to 0.070 ppm. In addition, EPA proposes that the 

18 secondary standard, which was set in 2008 to be 

19 identical to the primary standard, should instead be a 

20 new cumulative seasonal standard with a specific form 

21 called W126, and with a level within the range of 7 to 

22 15 ppm hours. Administrator intends to sign a notice 

0166

 1 of final rule-making by August 31st of 2010. 

 2 Now let me turn to the comment portion of 

 3 today's hearing. We will be preparing a written 

 4 transcript of today's hearing. The transcripts will be 

 5 available as part of the official record for each rule. 

 6 We are also accepting written comments for the proposed 

 7 rule until March 22nd, 2010. We have a handout 

 8 available at the registration area, the table outside of 

 9 those doors, with detailed information for submitting 

10 written comments. 

11 At this time, I would like to outline how 

12 today's hearing will work. I will call the scheduled 

13 speakers to the microphone. Please state your name and 

14 your affiliation. It will help our court reporter if 

15 you also spell your name. In order to be fair to 

16 everyone, we are asking that you limit your testimony to 

17 five minutes each and to remain at the microphone until 

18 both speakers have finished. After you finish your 

19 testimony, a panel member may ask clarifying questions. 

20 As I mentioned, we are transcribing today's 

21 hearing and each speaker's oral testimony will become 

22 part of the official record. Please be sure to give a 

0167

 1 copy of any written comments to our staff at the 

 2 registration table outside. We will put the full text 

 3 of your written comments into the docket for you. 

 4 We have a timekeeping system consisting of 

 5 green, yellow, and red lights. When you begin speaking, 

 6 the green light will come on. You will have five 

 7 minutes to speak. The yellow light will signal that you 

 8 have two minutes left to speak. We will ask that you 

 9 stop speaking when the red light comes on. 

10 We have Stella Koch.

11 MS. KOCH: My name is Stella Koch, and I am 

12 speaking on behalf of Audubon Naturalist Society, a 

13 member-based organization, which has been a vocal 
file:///C|/...%20Documents/This%20Weeks%20Work/DIS%20349_Ozone%20Public%20Hearing/Ozone,%20meeting%20-%20Vol.%20I.txt[2/25/2010 9:23:09 AM]

14 advocate on behalf of natural areas in the greater DC 

15 region since 1897. 

16 We fully support the EPA's proposal to 

17 strengthen the rules governing ground-level ozone or 

18 smog. As all of us know, smog is linked to a number of 

19 human health problems, especially among children and 

20 those with lung or heart disease. Smog's harmful 

21 effects on wildlife and plants are also widely 

22 recognized.

0168

 1 ANS supports the proposed EPA primary standard 

 2 between 0.060 and 0.070 parts per billion measured over 

 3 eight hours that will protect public health. Likewise, 

 4 ANS supports the proposed separate secondary standard to 

 5 protect the environment. When approved, the new levels 

 6 will reduce damage to trees and other plants, namely 

 7 stunted growth and increased susceptibility to disease 

 8 that occur from repeated ozone exposure. 

 9 Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

10 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you. 

11 Does the panel have any comment? 

12 (Pause in the proceedings.)

13 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Good afternoon, and thank you 

14 for attending the Environmental Protection Agency's 

15 public hearing on our proposal to set different National 

16 Ambient Air Quality Standards or NAAQS for ground-level 

17 ozone than those set in 2008. I recognize that many of 

18 you have traveled quite a distance to be here, and I 

19 appreciate your efforts. 

20 My name is Rosalina Rodriguez, and I am the 

21 associate director for the Health and Environmental 

22 Impacts Division for EPA's Office of Air Quality 

0169

 1 Planning and Standards. I will be chairing today's 

 2 hearing. Joining me on the panel are Lea Anderson of 

 3 EPA's Office of General Counsel, and David McKee and 

 4 Vicki Sandiford of EPA's Office or Air Quality Planning 

 5 and Standards. 

 6 We are here today to listen to your comments 

 7 on EPA's proposal to set different primary and secondary 

 8 ozone standards. This hearing is an important 

 9 opportunity for the public to comment on EPA's proposed 

10 rule. The panel members may answer questions that seek 

11 to clarify what we have proposed, but the purpose of 

12 this hearing is to listen to your comments and not to 

13 discuss or debate the proposal. 

14 Before we move to the comment period, I would 

15 like to briefly describe the proposed rule that is the 

16 subject of today's hearing. The proposed rule was 

17 published on the Federal Register on January 19, 2010. 

18 Based on the review of the science on the impacts of 

19 ozone and other photochemical oxidants, EPA is proposing 

20 different primary and secondary ozone NAAQS than were 

21 set in 2008 to protect public health as well as 
file:///C|/...%20Documents/This%20Weeks%20Work/DIS%20349_Ozone%20Public%20Hearing/Ozone,%20meeting%20-%20Vol.%20I.txt[2/25/2010 9:23:09 AM]

22 vegetation and ecosystems. Specifically, EPA proposes 

0170

 1 that the level of the eight-hour primary standard, which 

 2 was set in 2008 at 0.075 parts per million or ppm, 

 3 should instead be set at a level in the range of 0.060 

 4 to 0.070 ppm. 

 5 In addition, EPA proposes that the secondary 

 6 standard which was set in 2008 to be identical to the 

 7 primary standard should instead be a new cumulative 

 8 seasonal standard with a specific form called W126, and 

 9 with a level within the range of 7 to 15 ppm hours. 

10 Administrator intends to sign a notice of final 

11 rule-making by August 31st of 2010. 

12 Now let me turn to the comment portion of 

13 today's hearing. We will be preparing a written 

14 transcript of today's hearing. The transcripts will be 

15 available as part of the official record for each rule. 

16 We are also accepting written comments for the proposed 

17 rule until March 22nd, 2010. We have a handout 

18 available at the registration area, the table outside of 

19 those doors, with detailed information for submitting 

20 written comments. 

21 At this time, I would like to outline how 

22 today's hearing will work. I will call the scheduled 

0171

 1 speakers to the microphone. Please state your name and 

 2 your affiliation. It will help our court reporter if 

 3 you also spell your name. In order to be fair to 

 4 everyone, we are asking that you limit your testimony to 

 5 five minutes each and to remain at the microphone until 

 6 both speakers have finished. After you finish your 

 7 testimony, a panel member may ask clarifying questions. 

 8 As I mentioned, we are transcribing today's 

 9 hearing and each speaker's oral testimony will become 

10 part of the official record. Please be sure to give a 

11 copy of any written comments to our staff at the 

12 registration table outside. We will put the full text 

13 of your written comments into the docket for you. 

14 We have a timekeeping system consisting of 

15 green, yellow, and red lights. When you begin speaking, 

16 the green light will come on. You will have five 

17 minutes to speak. The yellow light will signal that you 

18 have two minutes left to speak. We will ask that you 

19 stop speaking when the red light comes on. We will be 

20 here until the evening, until everyone has an 

21 opportunity to comment. 

22 Ms. Aramo, you are welcome to come up to 

0172

 1 table. 

 2 MS. ARAMO: My name is Terri Aramo. I am not 

 3 affiliated, but just concerned. So this is like the 

 4 third or fourth time I've testified on air and water 

 5 quality around the area with you guys. But basically I 

 6 support any new rules or changes in old bad rules where, 
file:///C|/...%20Documents/This%20Weeks%20Work/DIS%20349_Ozone%20Public%20Hearing/Ozone,%20meeting%20-%20Vol.%20I.txt[2/25/2010 9:23:09 AM]

 7 you know, human health and biodiversity is protected. 

 8 So the big companies oil and gas, all of the 

 9 big polluted companies, don't seem to have any ethics 

10 and morals. It's always the bottom line in the economy. 

11 If you don't have diversity, biodiversity and a sound 

12 ecology, you can't have anything. So although they have 

13 a lot of money, we have little voices, but I guess the 

14 numbers all add up. Obviously you guys think the rule 

15 changes are a good idea because you have to protect 

16 ourselves and you have to protect animal life and plant 

17 (Pause in the proceedings.) 

18 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you for attending the 

19 Environmental Protection Agency's public hearing on our 

20 proposal to set different National Ambient Air Quality 

21 Standards or NAAQS for ground-level ozone than those set 

22 in 2008. I recognize that many of you have traveled 

0173

 1 quite a distance to be here, and I appreciate your 

 2 efforts. 

 3 My name is Rosalina Rodriguez, and I am the 

 4 associate director for the Health and Environmental 

 5 Impacts Division for EPA's Office of Air Quality 

 6 Planning and Standards. I will be chairing today's 

 7 hearing. Joining me on the panel are Lea Anderson of 

 8 EPA's Office of General Counsel, and David McKee and 

 9 Vicki Sandiford of EPA's Office or Air Quality Planning 

10 and Standards. 

11 We are here today to listen to your comments 

12 on EPA's proposal to set different primary and secondary 

13 ozone standards. This hearing is an important 

14 opportunity for the public to comment on EPA's proposed 

15 rule. The panel members may answer questions that seek 

16 to clarify what we have proposed, but the purpose of 

17 this hearing is to listen to your comments and not to 

18 discuss or debate the proposal. 

19 Before we move to the comment period, I would 

20 like to briefly describe the proposed rule that is the 

21 subject of today's hearing. The proposed rule was 

22 published on the Federal Register on January 19, 2010. 

0174

 1 Based on the review of the science on the impacts of 

 2 ozone and other photochemical oxidants, EPA is proposing 

 3 different primary and secondary ozone NAAQS than were 

 4 set in 2008 to protect public health as well as 

 5 vegetation and ecosystems. Specifically, EPA proposes 

 6 that the level of the eight-hour primary standard, which 

 7 was set in 2008 at 0.075 parts per million or ppm should 

 8 instead be set at a level in the range of 0.060 to 0.070 

 9 ppm. 

10 In addition, EPA proposes that the secondary 

11 standard which was set in 2008 to be identical to the 

12 primary standard should instead be a new cumulative 

13 seasonal standard with a specific form called W126, and 

14 with a level within the range of 7 to 15 ppm hours. 
file:///C|/...%20Documents/This%20Weeks%20Work/DIS%20349_Ozone%20Public%20Hearing/Ozone,%20meeting%20-%20Vol.%20I.txt[2/25/2010 9:23:09 AM]

15 Administrator intends to sign a notice of final 

16 rule-making by August 31st of 2010. 

17 We will be preparing a written transcript of 

18 today's hearing. The transcripts will be available as 

19 part of the official record for each rule. We are also 

20 accepting written comments for the proposed rule until 

21 March 22nd, 2010. We have a handout available at the 

22 registration area, the table outside of those doors, 

0175

 1 with detailed information for submitting written 

 2 comments. 

 3 At this time, I would like to outline how 

 4 today's hearing will work. I will call the scheduled 

 5 speakers to the microphone. Please state your name and 

 6 your affiliation. It will help our court reporter if 

 7 you also spell your name. In order to be fair to 

 8 everyone, we are asking that you limit your testimony to 

 9 five minutes each and to remain at the microphone until 

10 both speakers have finished. After you finish your 

11 testimony, a panel member may ask clarifying questions. 

12 As I mentioned, we are transcribing today's 

13 hearing and each speaker's oral testimony will become 

14 part of the official record. Please be sure to give a 

15 copy of any written comments to our staff at the 

16 registration table outside. We will put the full text 

17 of your written comments into the docket for you. 

18 We have a timekeeping system consisting of 

19 green, yellow, and red lights. When you begin speaking, 

20 the green light will come on. You will have five 

21 minutes to speak. The yellow light will signal that 

22 you have two minutes left to speak. We will ask that 

0176

 1 you stop speaking when the red light comes on. 

 2 I would like to thank you again for 

 3 participating today. 

 4 Let's get Al Burt and Victoria Wittig. 

 5 MR. BURT: I think we all agree that we should 

 6 use the most stringent standards for reducing carbon 

 7 pollution and sulfur pollution and so on in the air. 

 8 What I am here this evening for is to go over 

 9 some of the alternatives that are now being used to 

10 reduce this atmospheric pollution. I'm mainly concerned 

11 about the proliferation of windmill farms near our 

12 national parks and our national wilderness areas that 

13 are going up with the idea that wind is free. 

14 In looking at some of the other alternatives, 

15 I want to go over them briefly. One of them is, I 

16 believe, that if we put an energy tax on sufficient to 

17 raise the price of cost of energy to people, if they 

18 would cut back on their waste. I have read articles 

19 that said that the waste is approximately 30 percent of 

20 our energy consumption. If we cut this waste back, say, 

21 2 or 3 percent a year, we would get ten years of -- 

22 reducing demand that would offset the increase of demand 
file:///C|/...%20Documents/This%20Weeks%20Work/DIS%20349_Ozone%20Public%20Hearing/Ozone,%20meeting%20-%20Vol.%20I.txt[2/25/2010 9:23:09 AM]

0177

 1 due to population, which would, therefore, eliminate the 

 2 need for increased supplies. This could be done because 

 3 a fairly decent supply demand curve could be created 

 4 using previous high gasoline prices and cutting back on 

 5 driving and things like that. I think that any analyst 

 6 could come up with a supply demand curve that would show 

 7 how much you have to raise the taxes on energy in order 

 8 to get the demand down. 

 9 Another option for cutting back on emissions 

10 for nuclear power plants -- and I don't have any 

11 interest in nuclear at all, so I'm not coming to push 

12 that. I have down here a fact that I put together by 

13 combining two articles. One nuclear power plant with 

14 two reactors emitting nothing but harmless steam 

15 provides the same power as 388 miles of wind farms on 

16 the ridge of, say, our Blue Ridge Parkway. Almost a 

17 distance from Front Royal to Asheville could be replaced 

18 by one nuclear reactor.

19 Since I have a little bit of time left over, I 

20 will go over some of the objections over the last 

21 year-and-a-half. I have gone over many, many articles, 

22 about 100 articles on local people objecting to wind 

0178

 1 farms. Of course, the main objection is that they 

 2 destroy the beauty of the surrounding area. You can see 

 3 if a windmill is on top of a ridge and it's 450 feet 

 4 high, you can see that from a radius of 47 miles if the 

 5 air is clear enough. And if you use good old 

 6 (inaudible) square, that means that 7,074 square miles 

 7 of land around the ridge where the windmill is can see 

 8 that windmill. So you have a tremendous effect. If you 

 9 multiply that by 388 miles, you're talking about a lot 

10 of people being adversely affected. 

11 And to quote Frederick Olmsted, these 

12 windmills obscure, distort -- now, he didn't quote the 

13 windmills -- obscure, distort, and detract from the 

14 dignity of the scenery. 

15 I'll go over very briefly the health hazards 

16 that have been cited by people. Helicopter like noise 

17 heard for miles around in a quiet rural setting causes 

18 migraine headaches, sleep depravation, heart disease and 

19 depression. The shadow flicker from the light coming 

20 through the rotating blades causes vertigo, panic 

21 attacks, and other Wind Turbine Syndrome WTS effects. 

22 I have other several complaints down here. I 

0179

 1 am going to submit to the record for you to read over. 

 2 I have got two seconds left. 

 3 Thank you very much. I will be happy to 

 4 answer any questions. 

 5 MS. WITTIG: Good evening. Thank you for the 

 6 opportunity to testify today with regards to the EPA's 

 7 reconsideration of the 2008 NAAQS for ozone. I am 
file:///C|/...%20Documents/This%20Weeks%20Work/DIS%20349_Ozone%20Public%20Hearing/Ozone,%20meeting%20-%20Vol.%20I.txt[2/25/2010 9:23:09 AM]

 8 currently a Christine Mirzayan Science and Technology 

 9 fellow at the National Academy in Washington, D.C. I am 

10 speaking today as a private citizen. For the record, my 

11 oral and written testimony do not represent the views of 

12 the Academy or any other private entity. They are 

13 entirely based on my own expertise. 

14 I received my Ph.D from the Department of 

15 Plant Biology at the University of Illinois in March of 

16 2008. The results of my thesis titled the Impacts of 

17 Elevated Carbon Dioxide and Tropospheric Ozone on the 

18 Growth and Productivity of trees have implications for 

19 understanding the impacts of the two rising greenhouse 

20 gasses on the global carbon cycle and climate change. 

21 The two data chapters in my thesis that 

22 specifically focused on ozone impact on trees are 

0180

 1 published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. I 

 2 have provided full citations of these manuscripts for 

 3 the record in my written testimony. 

 4 My testimony today is in support of the 

 5 secondary ozone standard, known as the W126 that has 

 6 been proposed to protect sensitive vegetation 

 7 ecosystems, including forest, parks, wildlife, and 

 8 wilderness areas. The EPA is proposing to set the 

 9 secondary standard within the range of 7 to 15 ppm 

10 hours, which is a weighted cumulative index summed over 

11 three-month growing season during peak exposures and 

12 then averaged over three years. 

13 Ozone damages plants in much the same way that 

14 it damages lung tissue in humans. It enters the 

15 intercellular spaces of the leaf through pores on the 

16 leaf surface, and once inside, it readily reacts with 

17 the waterline surfaces of cells, leading to the 

18 production of active oxygen species that degrade the 

19 integrity of those cells. 

20 Over long time periods, however, ozone has 

21 more cumulative effects. It decreases the 

22 photosynthetic rate or carbon uptake of trees by 

0181

 1 reducing the rubisco content and/or activity, which is 

 2 the enzyme responsible for CO2 assimilation through 

 3 photosynthesis. 

 4 Using the statistical meta analytic 

 5 techniques, my Ph.D research quantified the impacts of 

 6 ozone that have been reported in the peer-reviewed 

 7 literature for more than 30 years. 

 8 This wealth of data examined the impacts of 

 9 past, present, and potential future concentrations of 

10 ozone on trees. Trees with economic importance, such as 

11 almond, orange, and pine, in addition to forest trees 

12 that have important roles for ecosystem health and 

13 mitigating climate change were included in this 

14 literature. 

15 A meta analysis is a statistical tool used to 
file:///C|/...%20Documents/This%20Weeks%20Work/DIS%20349_Ozone%20Public%20Hearing/Ozone,%20meeting%20-%20Vol.%20I.txt[2/25/2010 9:23:09 AM]

16 quantify the direction, magnitude, and significance of a 

17 treatment that is administered in different ways and in 

18 different experimental designs. Using this technique, I 

19 have provided quantitative estimates of the magnitude, 

20 direction, and significance of ozone impacts in hundreds 

21 of peer-reviewed experiments on trees. 

22 Now, the best estimates suggests that in the 

0182

 1 early 1800s background ozone concentrations were about 

 2 10 ppb averaged globally. Since the industrial 

 3 revolution, burning of fossil fuels have increased one 

 4 of the precursors to ozone formation, nitrogen oxides, 

 5 in addition to volatoric [sic] compounds, leading to 

 6 elevated ozone concentrations that are approximately 40 

 7 ppb today. 

 8 Based on the statistical meta analyses of 99 

 9 independent observations in the peer-reviewed 

10 literature, these ozone concentrations of 40 part per 

11 billion are already depressing the total biomass of 

12 trees by 7 percent. This is significant because trees 

13 are responsible for approximately 70 percent of net 

14 carbon assimilation globally. Therefore, any decrease 

15 in their capacity to assimilate carbon has significant 

16 implications for the global carbon cycle and climate 

17 change. 

18 Now, not only is ozone the third strongest 

19 greenhouse gas as reported in IPCC fourth assessment 

20 report, it is also the most damaging air pollutant to 

21 plants and animals. 

22 Because ozone is depressing the ability of 

0183

 1 trees to assimilate carbon dioxide through 

 2 photosynthesis, I will say, again, it is indirectly 

 3 contributing to climate change by leaving more carbon 

 4 dioxide, the strongest greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. 

 5 According to the meta analysis, the 

 6 photosynthetic rate of trees was reduced by 11 percent 

 7 across 348 observations recorded in the peer-review 

 8 literature at a ozone concentration of 40 ppb. 

 9 If concentrations continue to rise, for 

10 example, to 80 ppb, the decrease in photosynthesis can 

11 reach 20 percent. This has, again, significant 

12 implications for climate change. 

13 Apart from leading to accelerated leaf death 

14 and, therefore, impacting the aesthetic quality of 

15 forest ecosystems that we enjoy during the fall, ozone 

16 also has the potential to change the dynamics of 

17 ecological communities by disproportionately impacting 

18 sensitive species to the competitive advantage of more 

19 tolerant species. For example, ambient background 

20 concentrations between 40 and 50 parts per billion, put 

21 broad leaf angiosperm, such as poplars, at a competitive 

22 disadvantage to needle leaf such as pines. 

0184
file:///C|/...%20Documents/This%20Weeks%20Work/DIS%20349_Ozone%20Public%20Hearing/Ozone,%20meeting%20-%20Vol.%20I.txt[2/25/2010 9:23:09 AM]

 1 Furthermore, root biomass, according to the 

 2 meta analysis, is decreased more than shoot biomass. 

 3 This has significant implication for the tree's ability 

 4 to access nutrients and water, as well as increasing 

 5 their risk from damage, from storms, hurricanes. 

 6 Precursor concentrations are projected to 

 7 increase if fossil fuel consumption continues on the 

 8 current trajectory. Particularly the contribution of 

 9 nitrogen oxides from coal and the incomplete fuel 

10 combustion in vehicles. This is an addition to the 

11 prevalence of conditions more favorable to ozone 

12 formation in a warmer climate. It is, therefore, likely 

13 that ozone pollution will continue to be a significant 

14 cause of decreased productivity of trees in coming 

15 decades. 

16 According to the meta analysis, average ozone 

17 concentrations of 64 ppb compared to ambient 

18 concentrations of approximately 40 ppb will result in a 

19 10 percent loss in total biomass of trees as evidenced 

20 in 178 observations. In this case, all parts of the 

21 tree, including leaf biomass, leaf area, root biomass, 

22 height and diameter are significantly reduced. 

0185

 1 The proposed standard being discussed today is 

 2 based on the scientific recommendations from EPA's 2007 

 3 review of National Ambient Air Quality Standards for 

 4 ozone, and finally restore science to its rightful place 

 5 in the regulatory process. 

 6 I urge the EPA to follow through on the 

 7 commitment to set ozone standards to levels that will 

 8 protect people and the environment from both direct and 

 9 indirect threats from ozone. I am eager to see the 

10 secondary standard in place and applaud the efforts that 

11 EPA has taken to establish the W126 in order to allow 

12 for a continuos accounting for ozone concentrations that 

13 are included in the '06 approach. 

14 I would, however, recommend that the EPA 

15 revisit the three-month limitation to the index. To my 

16 understanding, the three-month limitation was put in 

17 place largely because of data that was available on 

18 annual crop species. The growing season for trees which 

19 comprised a larger carbon sink globally is longer -- I 

20 should say in the United States -- is longer than most 

21 annual crops, and it would, therefore, be logical to 

22 establish an index that is capable of accounting for the 

0186

 1 functional lifetime of leaves of these trees. 

 2 That concludes my testimony. Thank you for 

 3 your time and consideration. I look forward to any 

 4 questions. 

 5 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you. 

 6 Any questions? 

 7 MS. SANDIFORD: Can you tell me if there are 

 8 other authors on your thesis or did you publish it as a 
file:///C|/...%20Documents/This%20Weeks%20Work/DIS%20349_Ozone%20Public%20Hearing/Ozone,%20meeting%20-%20Vol.%20I.txt[2/25/2010 9:23:09 AM]

 9 separate journal article? 

10 DR. WITTIG: Yes. There are two journal 

11 articles that examine the issue. The first was in 2007 

12 co-authored by myself, Elizabeth Ainsworth, and Steven 

13 Long, who is my Ph.D advisor. The second manuscript 

14 that was published in 2009 was authored by myself, Lisa 

15 Ainsworth, Steven Long, and the late Dave Karnosky. 

16 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, both. 

17 We would like to call to the table Michael 

18 Greenberg and Scott Goldstein.

19 I understand you have been briefed on how the 

20 hearing goes. You will have five minutes to speak. 

21 When it goes to yellow, you have two minutes left. When 

22 it's red, your time is up. 

0187

 1 MR. GREENBERG: Hi, there. I found out about 

 2 this hearing. I felt very strongly that I should go 

 3 because my grandmother died three years ago of lung 

 4 cancer. And I know that that's one of the things that 

 5 can be caused by the increased ozone in the air. I 

 6 really would like to not happen to other people. 

 7 So I would -- so science has been calling for 

 8 us to lower the admission standards to 60 parts per 

 9 million, which has been what scientists have been 

10 calling for for a while and unfortunately they sort of 

11 got ignored under Bush for various reasons. But, yes, I 

12 really do believe it is important for now. 

13 So it could help us avoid 5,300 heart attacks 

14 every year, 21,000 emergency room visits, 2.5 million 

15 missed days of work, and 4 to 12,000 premature deaths 

16 annually. 

17 MR. GOLDSTEIN: This is from the Sierra Club, 

18 that's our source. 

19 MR. GREENBERG: So the ozone can burn airways 

20 in lungs and can cause inflammation, and even healthy 

21 people can receive difficulty breathing, coughing, 

22 wheezing, chest pain. For people who choose to 

0188

 1 exercise, which typically is something with health 

 2 benefits, it can have an adverse effect when the ozone 

 3 levels are high because of what you breathe in.

 4 Children are at a very high risk group for 

 5 this because their lungs are still young. So we 

 6 probably don't even realize the full effects of all the 

 7 smog in our air because of the levels of today will only 

 8 be realized 30, 40, 50 years from now when today's 

 9 children become older. So we really do think that now 

10 is the time to lower it. The impact hasn't been 

11 realized yet, but it's definitely there. Senior 

12 citizens are very much at risk. People have already 

13 high rates of lung disease. 

14 So I would urge you to regulate the ozone to 

15 60 parts per million, which is what science is calling 

16 for. Thank you. 
file:///C|/...%20Documents/This%20Weeks%20Work/DIS%20349_Ozone%20Public%20Hearing/Ozone,%20meeting%20-%20Vol.%20I.txt[2/25/2010 9:23:09 AM]

17 MR. GOLDSTEIN: My friend discussed most of 

18 the health benefits. This is really a moral 

19 accountability issue. We, as the children, if the issue 

20 isn't -- 

21 MS. RODRIGUEZ: For the record, would you 

22 state your name? 

0189

 1 MR. GOLDSTEIN: Yes, sure. My name is Scott 

 2 Goldstein. 

 3 So my friend discussed the health issues that 

 4 result from ozone, but a main obstacle to lowering the 

 5 parts per million is economic problems. So actually we 

 6 did a little research; and cost wise, the health 

 7 benefits will save more money than the cost of 

 8 implementing further restrictions. Over $100 billion 

 9 can be saved from hospital visits and lawyers, et 

10 cetera, if levels were limited to 60 parts per million. 

11 So it would not be so much of an economic inhibition. 

12 Sure some jobs might be lost from dirty power plants, 

13 but probably more jobs can be created from the building 

14 of new power plants, which are a better environment. 

15 And as I said earlier -- you know, as my 

16 friend said, it's really important that we do it now and 

17 not push it off, because we really don't know the 

18 long-term effects. In 30 or 40 years, we might have 

19 really, you know, hurt severely a generation because we 

20 haven't implemented technologies, which we already have. 

21 As my friend, Michael, said, we urge you to 

22 lower the levels to 60 parts per million. 

0190

 1 MR. GREENBERG: Is that all you have to say, 

 2 Scott? 

 3 MR. GOLDSTEIN: Yes.

 4 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Does the panel have any 

 5 questions? 

 6 Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you for your 

 7 time. 

 8 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Good evening, and thank you 

 9 for attending the Environmental Protection Agency's 

10 public hearing on our proposal to set different National 

11 Ambient Air Quality Standards or NAAQS for ground-level 

12 ozone than those set in 2008. I recognize that many of 

13 you have traveled quite a distance to be here, and I 

14 appreciate your efforts. My name is Rosalina Rodriguez, 

15 and I am the associate director for the Health and 

16 Environmental Impacts Division for EPA's Office of Air 

17 Quality Planning and Standards. I will be chairing 

18 today's hearing. Joining me on the panel are Lea 

19 Anderson of EPA's Office of General Counsel, and David 

20 McKee and Vicki Sandiford of EPA's Office or Air Quality 

21 Planning and Standards. 

22 We are here today to listen to your comments 

0191

 1 on EPA's proposal to set different primary and secondary 
file:///C|/...%20Documents/This%20Weeks%20Work/DIS%20349_Ozone%20Public%20Hearing/Ozone,%20meeting%20-%20Vol.%20I.txt[2/25/2010 9:23:09 AM]

 2 ozone standards. This hearing is an important 

 3 opportunity for the public to comment on EPA's proposed 

 4 rule. The panel members may answer questions that seek 

 5 to clarify what we have proposed. But the purpose of 

 6 this hearing is to listen to your comments and not to 

 7 discuss or debate the proposal. 

 8 Now let me turn to the comment portion of 

 9 today's hearing. We will be preparing a written 

10 transcript of today's hearing. The transcripts will be 

11 available as part of the official record for each rule. 

12 We are also accepting written comments for the proposed 

13 rule until March 22nd, 2010. We have a handout 

14 available at the registration area. The table outside 

15 of those doors, with detailed information for submitting 

16 written comments. At this time, I would like to outline 

17 how today's hearing will work. Call the scheduled 

18 speakers to the microphone. Please state your name and 

19 your affiliation. It will help our court reporter if 

20 you also spell your name. In order to be fair to 

21 everyone, we are asking that you limit your testimony to 

22 five minutes each and to remain at the microphone until 

0192

 1 both speakers have finished. After you finish your 

 2 testimony, a panel member may ask clarifying questions. 

 3 As I mentioned, we are transcribing today's 

 4 hearing and each speaker's oral testimony will become 

 5 part of the official record. Please be sure to give a 

 6 copy of any written comments to our staff at the 

 7 registration table outside. We will put the full text 

 8 of your written comments into the docket for you. 

 9 We have a timekeeping system consisting of 

10 green, yellow, and red lights. When you begin speaking, 

11 the green light will come on. You will have five 

12 minutes to speak. The yellow light will signal that 

13 you have two minutes left to speak. We will ask that 

14 you stop speaking when the red light comes on. We 

15 intend to stay into the evening until everyone has had 

16 an opportunity to comment. If you would like to testify 

17 but haven't yet registered to do so, please sign up at 

18 the registration table. For those who have already 

19 registered to speak, we have tried to accommodate your 

20 request for a specific time frames. We ask for your 

21 patience as we proceed through the list. We may need to 

22 make some minor adjustments as the day progresses. I 

0193

 1 would like to thank you all again for participating 

 2 today. 

 3 MS. TIGHE: My name is Meaghan Tighe. I am 22 

 4 years old, and I am a recent graduate of the College of 

 5 the Holy Cross in Western Massachusetts. I currently 

 6 work for network of Catholic Social Justice Lobby. And 

 7 I am here to submit testimony in support of the National 

 8 Ambient Air Quality Standard at the rate of 60 parts per 

 9 billion. 
file:///C|/...%20Documents/This%20Weeks%20Work/DIS%20349_Ozone%20Public%20Hearing/Ozone,%20meeting%20-%20Vol.%20I.txt[2/25/2010 9:23:09 AM]

10 I guess as a student of environmental 

11 economics, the statistic that most jumps out at me are 

12 the substantial health benefits that will come with 

13 death in the proposed rule. 

14 I guess the same thing, given my experience, 

15 those numbers alone seem to signify that this could be a 

16 very worthwhile policy. And that's it.

17 Thank you. 

18 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Any questions from the panel? 

19 Thank you. 

20 (Thereupon, the hearing concluded at 7:30 

21 p.m.)

22 

0194

 1 CERTIFICATE OF NOTARY PUBLIC

 2 I, Janie G. Arriaga, Court Reporter, before 

 3 whom the foregoing deposition was taken, do hereby 

 4 certify that the witness whose testimony appears in the 

 5 foregoing deposition was duly sworn by me; that the 

 6 testimony of said witness was taken by me 

 7 stenographically, and that I thereafter reduced it to 

 8 typewriting; that said deposition is a true record of 

 9 the testimony given by said witness; that I am neither 

10 counsel for, related to, nor employed by any of the 

11 parties to the action in which this deposition was 

12 taken; and further, that I am not a relative or employee 

13 of any attorney or counsel employed by the parties 

14 thereto; nor financially or otherwise interested in the 

15 outcome of the action.

16 

17 JANIE G. ARRIAGA, 

18 Notary Public 

19 

20 My commission expires: July 31, 2010

 Registration Number 7039792 

21 

22